SECOND ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02990 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge be amended to reflect the following: 1. Item 5a (Grade, Rate or Rank) senior airman (E-4) – staff sergeant (E-5). 2. Item 5b (Pay Grade) airman first class (E-3) – staff sergeant (E-5). 3. Item 11c (Reason and Authority) AFI 36-3212 Chapter 5, A2.14, medical retirement. 4. Item 12 (Last Duty Assignment and Major Command) Order SAF 36-2603 5 March 2012. 5. Item 15 (Reenlistment Code) a code for medical reasons. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 9 May 1969, the applicant was discharged under the provision of AFM 39-12, Chapter 2, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program. He served 2 years, 10 months, and 14 days on active duty. On 16 August 1971, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) upgraded the applicant’s discharge characterization to honorable. On 7 January 1972, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) considered and denied the applicant’s requests that he be compensated for his record of severe paranoid personality disorder and that documentation of a psychiatric severe personality disorder be removed from his records. On 4 February 1976, the Board considered and denied a request from the applicant to amend his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, to include the discharge authority. On 7 October 1976, 20 November 1978, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request for disability retirement in lieu of his honorable discharge. On 14 March 1980, 20 June 1988, 15 May 1989, the applicant was denied reconsideration of his request for disability retirement. On 21 August 2002, the Board considered and denied his request that his DD Form 214 be amended to include the locations and dates of the medals he earned during his service. On 25 September 2008, the Board considered and denied his request for a medical retirement, a change to his narrative reason for separation, RE code, award of the AFGCM, completed basic training, completed career development courses, and promotion to the grade of sergeant. On 20 May 2010, the applicant was denied reconsideration of his previous 2008 request. In addition, he made several other requests which were not considered with his original appeal. He was provided a new DD Form 149 to complete in order for the Board to consider the new issues. On 29 June 2011, the Board considered and denied his request for a medical retirement, his APR closing 1 December 1968 be removed from his records, a change to his narrative reason for separation, RE code, promotion, and leave restored. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s appeals and the rationale of the earlier decisions by the Board, see the Addendum to Record of Proceedings, with attachments, dated 13 July 2011, at Exhibit J. In an application dated 19 June 2013, the applicant requests reconsideration. An error of fact, law procedure, or discretion exists that is associated with the discharge at the time of issuance. There is substantial doubt that the discharge would not have remained the same if an error had not been made. There is an arbitrary or capricious action, that includes actions by individuals in authority constituting clear abuse of such authority and, although may not amount to prejudicial error, may have contributed to the decision to discharge him. The Air Force Discharge Review Board upgraded his discharge from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. He further states the issue of whether or not the misconduct and diagnosis of paranoid personality disorder were intertwined, did one have a bearing on the causation with the other - the paranoid personality came as a result of a combat assignment, to which the current policies mandate that diagnosis of personality disorder must specifically address PTSD before discharge. Examiner’s Note: The applicant cites a similar case BC-2002- 02797 that was approved by the Board to be new information; however, he cites this case with his previous appeals. In support of the applicant’s appeal, he provides a personal statement, documents extracted from his military personnel records, Progress Notes (Medical) dated 21 December 2012 and other associated documentation. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit K. ________________________________________________________________ _ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. We have thoroughly reviewed the evidence of record and considered the weight and relevance of the additional documentation provided by the applicant, and whether or not it was discoverable at the time of any previous application. However, since no new and relevant evidence has been provided, we find the request does not meet the criteria for reconsideration. As the applicant has been previously advised, reconsideration is provided only where newly discovered relevant evidence is presented which was not available when the application was submitted. Further, the reiteration of facts we have previously addressed, uncorroborated personal observations, or additional arguments on the evidence of record are not adequate grounds for reopening a case. Therefore, in view of the above and in the absence of new and relevant evidence, we find no basis to reconsider the applicant’s request. 2. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ _ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. ________________________________________________________________ _ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-02990 in Executive Session on 26 February 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit J. Addendum to Record of Proceedings, dated 13 July 2011, w/atchs. Exhibit K. DD Form 149, dated 19 June 2013 w/atchs. 5 4