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