ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01536
COUNSEL:
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be
upgraded to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On 19 Mar 10, the applicant requested that his discharge be
upgraded to honorable, contending that he suffered from mental
illness and blood clots while on active duty. After considering
all the facts and evidence in the original case, the Board denied
his request on 10 Mar 11, noting there was no evidence of an
error or injustice in the discharge processing. The Board also
determined the evidence presented by the applicant relative to
his activities since leaving the service was not sufficient to
upgrade his discharge in the interest of justice on the basis of
clemency. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances
surrounding the applicants original request and the rationale of
the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings
at Exhibit F.
By application, dated 30 Jan 12 and 6 Feb 12, the applicant
requests reconsideration, contending that he should be granted
the requested relief because he was insane at the time of his
discharge. In support of his request for reconsideration, the
applicant provides an expanded statement and a copy of
correspondence from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA)
relative to their 16 Jul 08 finding that he is insane.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice. The applicant contends
that his other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge should
be upgraded to honorable because he was insane at the time of his
1980 discharge. After a thorough review of the evidence of
record and the applicants complete submission, we are not
convinced that corrective action is warranted. We note the
applicant has presented correspondence from the Department of
Veterans Affairs (DVA) relative to their 16 Jul 08 finding that
he is insane and their determination that his service should be
characterized as honorable for VA purposes; however, we are not
convinced the determination by the DVA, some 28 years after the
applicants discharge, renders him the victim of an error or
injustice with respect to the characterization of his service in
1980. In this respect, we note the DVA, operating under Title
38, United States Code (USC), is empowered to determine whether
or not a veterans service can be classified as honorable for the
purpose of bestowing DVA benefits and irrespective of the
discharge authoritys original determination of service
characterization. Such a finding, in and of itself, does not
require us to recommending the requested relief be granted,
particularly when the applicant has failed to submit any evidence
relative to his condition during his service and whether or not
there was a causal relationship between his purported condition
and the misconduct for which he was discharged. Therefore, in
the absence of such evidence, we find no basis to recommend
granting the relief requested in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material 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-2010-01536 in Executive Session on 13 Dec 12, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit F. Record of Proceedings, dated 1 Apr 11, w/atchs.
Exhibit G. DD Forms 149, dated 30 Jan 12 and 6 Feb 12,
w/atchs.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 04121 2
For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicants original request and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit E. On 8 Aug 13, the applicant submitted new information pertaining to his original case for AFBCMR consideration. The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the characterization of the service was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02385
On 13 Feb 75, the discharge authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed the applicant be discharged with an undesirable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. Based upon the available evidence, currently and at the time of the applicant's discharge, the BCMR Medical Consultant finds no procedural errors or injustice in the actions taken by the discharge authority in the characterization of the applicant's service. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03658
The applicant’s performance reports are provided at Exhibit B. Available records pertaining to the applicant’s medical issues are at Exhibit B, and the AFBCMR Medical Consultant provides medical details in his advisory at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s review of the applicant’s service records revealed no reference to participation in combat or events similar to those described by the...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01536
However, even when considering possible overlapping symptoms of PTSD, Panic Disorder, and Anxiety Disorder, military officials determined that it was his co-morbid Personality Disorder that presented the greatest obstacle to his treatment and retention and, thus, recommended the administrative discharge. The proposed treatment for his anxiety disorder in 1985 was appropriate regardless of the differential diagnosis (e.g., PTSD vs. Panic Disorder). The applicant is advised that a diagnosis...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1984-04083A
On 13 Oct 83, his commander recommended discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends, as a diabetic herself, that her husband’s elevated blood sugar episode was not properly followed up by the Air Force. Review of service and DVA medical records through 1992 show no evidence of diabetes, and evaluation by DVA physicians also indicate no...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1991-02293A
On 13 Oct 83, his commander recommended discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends, as a diabetic herself, that her husband’s elevated blood sugar episode was not properly followed up by the Air Force. Review of service and DVA medical records through 1992 show no evidence of diabetes, and evaluation by DVA physicians also indicate no...
AF | BCMR | CY1986 | BC 1986 04163 3
On 4 May 09, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration of his request to have his general discharge upgraded to honorable. The reasons for his discharge are well documented in his record. Exhibit L. Applicant's Reconsideration Request, dated 4 Sep 09.
AF | BCMR | CY1991 | BC 1991 01020 6
THIRD ADDENDUM RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1991-01020 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES RESUME OF CASE: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general discharge. After a thorough review of the evidence the applicant submitted in support of his request for reconsideration and determined that it was not sufficient to overcome the rationale expressed in the Boards previous decisions. For a complete...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 02405 2
The entry in his official medical records, dated 20 Sep 65, stating his headaches were relieved by proper eyeglasses in 1965 be changed to read Headaches from Dec 1961 to 1 Oct 65. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicants original request and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit F. On 3 Jun 10, the Board notified the applicant that a subsequent, undated, request for reconsideration by the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05686
On 18 Jun 09, an informal physical evaluation board (IPEB) determined the applicants coronary heart disease was unfitting for continued military service and recommended he be discharged with severance pay with a disability rating of 10 percent. The DVA Schedule for Rating disabilities indicates the applicants coronary artery disease rating fell at or below the criteria for a 10 percent disability rating; as he was also rated by the DVA. While the Board acknowledges the comment by the...