ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03078
                                             INDEX CODE 145.02, 108.02
                                             COUNSEL:  None

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The applicant’s original application  listed  numerous  requests;  his
current  request  for  reconsideration  primarily  asks  that  he   be
medically  retired  for  Post-Traumatic  Stress  Disorder  (PTSD)  and
Behcet’s disease.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s medical and military history is extensive, the details
of which are discussed in the 16-page Record of Proceedings  (ROP)  at
Exhibit L.

In summary, he had a dysfunctional and apparently  abusive  childhood,
and was admitted to a psychiatric hospital in 1991 when he was  around
12.  He enlisted in the Air Force on 18 Jun  97  with  a  waiver.   On
10 Dec 98, he underwent a commander-directed mental health  evaluation
for inappropriate and strange behavior leading to  problems  at  work.
Further  diagnostic  evaluations  raised  credibility  and   integrity
issues.  He alleged he was sexually assaulted, on 20 Sep  99,  at  the
off-base residence of an AAFES contract employee, from  whom  he  took
piano lessons.  The applicant’s mental health sessions  continued,  as
did  his  need  for  constant  supervision  and  inclination   towards
unprofessional behavior and distortion.  He underwent medical  follow-
up visits for night sweats, flashbacks to childhood abuse,  and  other
physical/mental symptoms.  On 19 Dec 00, he was  reduced  from  senior
airman (SRA) to airman first class (A1C) by Article 15.  The commander
began administrative discharge proceedings for a general discharge  on
18 Jan 01.  During his career, the applicant received  three  referral
performance reports.  On 6 Mar 01, a Medical  Evaluation  Board  (MEB)
referred his case to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB)  for
PSTD and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).  The IPEB  found  the
PTSD unfitting but not ratable/compensable because it existed prior to
service (EPTS) and the condition did  not  sustain  permanent  service
aggravation (PSA), as contended by the applicant. A Formal PEB  (FPEB)
concurred.  The administrative  separation  process  was  discontinued
and, on 13 Jun 01, the Secretary of the Air  Force  Personnel  Council
(SAFPC) concurred with the FPEB findings,  concluded  the  applicant’s
personality disorder was the principle aggravating factor in both  his
disciplinary and mental health problems and, since it was the  primary
reason  for  separation,  chose  that  venue  over  an  administrative
punitive discharge.   The  SAFPC  ordered  the  applicant’s  honorable
discharge in the grade of  SRA.   On  15 Jun  01,  the  applicant  was
honorably discharged for disability, EPTS, after 4 years and  15  days
of active service.  However, his DD Form 214 erroneously reflected his
reduced grade of A1C, despite the Remarks section indicating SAFPC had
restored the applicant’s highest grade held.

On 4 and 25 Aug 04, the Board denied the applicant’s requests  for  an
investigation by the Department of Defense Inspector  General  (DODIG)
into his allegations of reprisal; voidance of a  Letter  of  Reprimand
(LOR), Control Roster action, an Unfavorable Information  File  (UIF),
and Article 15  punishment;  remuneration  for  courses;  award  of  a
decoration; and medical retirement for PTSD and Behcet’s disease.  The
Board also considered the three referral Enlisted Performance  Reports
but concluded they should not be changed or voided.  The applicant had
also requested that his highest grade held be reflected on his DD Form
214, in accordance with the determination made by the SAFPC on  12 Jun
01,  in  his  dual-action  processing  (medical   vs.   administrative
discharge).  This was administratively accomplished on 14 Sep 05.

For an accounting of the facts and  circumstances  pertaining  to  the
applicant’s original appeal  and  the  Board’s  earlier  decision  and
rationale, see the ROP, with attachments, at Exhibit L.

In a letter dated 29 Apr 05, the applicant’s Senator  submitted  a  13
April 2005 letter provided by the applicant from  a  civilian  medical
provider who contends that, based on his treatment of the applicant in
October 1991, there was no diagnosis of PTSD and he saw no symptoms of
PSTD at that time.

The Senator’s letter, with attachment, is at Exhibit M.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After again reviewing the evidence  of  record,  and  the  applicant’s
latest submission through his Senator, we remain unpersuaded  that  he
was the victim of either an error or an injustice.   The  letter  from
the medical provider was noted.  However, while the  provider  asserts
no diagnosis of PTSD was  made  in  1991,  that  does  not  inherently
establish it did  not  exist  prior  to  the  applicant’s  enlistment.
Regardless, the applicant has  a  documented  history  of  pre-service
psychological problems, and he  manifested  emotional  and  behavioral
difficulties more than  a  year  before  the  Sep  99  incident.   The
considerable documentation pertaining to this case  convinces  us  the
applicant’s personality disorder was the fundamental cause of most  of
his difficulties.  This condition is not ratable or compensable  under
Title 10, Chapter 61.  He has not shown that he was  improperly  rated
and discharged for  PTSD  or  any  other  disease.   Although  we  may
disagree with the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) decision, under
the statutory authority of Title 38, it was their prerogative to  find
the EPTS with PSA.   The  differences  between  these  two  disability
systems have been explained to the applicant before.  The  applicant’s
latest submission has neither overcome  the  evidence  of  record  nor
persuaded us to overturn the rationale and conclusions reached by  the
Board when his application was originally considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of material error  or  injustice;  that  the
application was denied without a personal  appearance;  and  that  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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 29 June 2005, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member
                       Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-03078 was considered:

   Exhibit L.  Record of Proceedings, dated 30 Aug 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit M.  Senator's Letter, dated 29 Apr 05, w/atch.




                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair