ADDENDUM TO 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1986-01455; 
 
BC-1996-00399 
COUNSEL: 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
 
   
 
   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
1.  His  records  be  corrected  to  reflect  he  was  retired  for 
physical  disability  for  post-traumatic  stress  disorder  (PTSD) 
and/or major depression, rather than discharged for a personality 
disorder. 
 
2.  In  the  alternative,  his  1984  discharge  should  be  set  aside 
and  he  be  constructively  reinstated  to  active  duty  for  the 
remaining  balance  of  his  6-year  term  of  enlistment,  granting 
regular retirement with back pay. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENTS OF FACTS: 
 
On 27 Mar 85, by virtue of a DD Form 149 (AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-1986-01455), the applicant requested his records be corrected 
to reflect his administrative discharge for personality disorder 
be set aside; he be reinstated  to active duty in the grade of 
senior master sergeant (E-8) and provided a six-year controlled 
tour at Charleston AFB, SC; 41.5 days of leave be restored to his 
leave  balance;  his  airman  performance  report  (APR)  closing 
6 Mar 84  be  removed  from  his  records;  and  he  be  reimbursed  all 
legal  fees  and  expenses.    The  applicant  contended  there  was  an 
insufficient basis for his administrative discharge as he did not 
have a personality or adjustment disorder.  However, finding no 
evidence of an error or injustice in the discharge proceedings or 
in his military record, the Board denied his requests in full on 
25  Jul  86.    For  an  accounting  of  the  facts  and  circumstances 
surrounding  the  applicant’s  request,  and  the  rationale  of  the 
earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at 
Exhibit G. 
 
By virtue of an 18 Jan 87 letter, with attachments, the applicant 
requested  reconsideration  of  his  case.    He  contended  the  Air 
Force  psychological  testing  which  showed  there  was  “no 
significant  psychopathology noted,” combined with the fact that 
his civilian licensed clinical psychologist made no mention of a 
personality disorder in his evaluation were proof that he did not 
suffer from a personality or adjustment disorder at the time of 

his  separation,  thus,  rendering  his  discharge  inappropriate.  
However, on 6 Jul 87, the Board considered and denied his request 
for reconsideration, indicating the new evidence provided by the 
applicant  was  insufficient  to  cause  the  Board  to  reverse  its 
previous  determination.    For  an  accounting  of  the  facts  and 
circumstances  surrounding  the  applicant’s  request,  and  the 
rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of 
Proceedings at Exhibit H. 
 
On 12 Oct 95, by virtue of a DD Form 149, with attachments, the 
applicant requested that his narrative reason for separation, as 
reflected on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge 
from Active Duty, be changed to reflect that he was retired for 
reasons  of  physical  disability  rather  than  for  a  personality 
disorder  (AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-1996-00399).    The  applicant 
contended the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) had determined 
his discharge should have been medical in nature and granted him 
service connection for his Dysthymia.  On 23 Jan 97, the Board 
considered and denied his request, noting the applicant underwent 
a mental health examination prior to his separation and there was 
no indication of any medical problems or restrictions which would 
warrant  medical  disability;  the  reason  for  the  discharge  was 
fully  documented  in  the  records  and  it  was  established  that  no 
error or injustice occurred.  For an accounting of the facts and 
circumstances  surrounding  the  applicant’s  request,  and  the 
rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of 
Proceedings at Exhibit I. 
 
By virtue of DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military 
Record, dated 15 Feb 2011, with attachments, the applicant again 
requests  reconsideration  of  his  request  and,  through  Counsel, 
makes the following contentions: 
 
1.  A  2007  General  Accountability  Office  (GAO)  Report  warrants 
new  due  process  in  the  applicant’s  case.    It  is  the  equitable 
practice  of  all  Discharge  Review  Boards  (DRBs)  and  Boards  for 
Correction  on  Military  Records  (BCMRs)  to  consider  retroactive 
application of favorable due process safeguards.   
 
2.  During the applicant’s two tours in Vietnam he was exposed to 
enemy artillery and rocket attacks, the death of buddies, and a 
close friend.  The DVA determined the applicant’s delayed onset 
PTSD  and  major  depression  were  service-connected  and  rated  at 
50 percent.   
 
3.  With  respect  to  the  applicant’s  discharge,  the  personality 
disorder diagnosis did not examine the co-morbidity of PTSD and 
related  mental  illness  of  depression.    This  should  have  been 
considered since his prior 13 years of service did not support a 
persistent history of personality disorder type behavior.   
 

 

 
2 

4.  He provides an Army Board for Correction of Military Records 
(ABCMR) case where an experienced combat veteran was discharged 
for  personality  disorder.    However,  the  ABCMR  determined  the 
member  was  misdiagnosed  and  later  discredited  the  personality 
disorder  diagnosis  and  correctly  recognized  the  member’s 
condition as delayed onset of combat-related PTSD. 
 
5.  Dr.  A  provides  a  separate  opinion  in  the  applicant’s  case, 
concluding  the  applicant  does  not  have  a  personality  disorder, 
and never had a personality disorder.  Dr. A. states that PTSD 
presents initially with symptoms of anxiety and or depression and 
the  probable  onset  of  the  applicant’s  PTSD  was  in  1983.    The 
applicant’s symptoms and conflicts with others first appeared in 
1983  and  were  not  the  result  of  adjustment  disorder  but  rather 
the  onset  of  a  psychiatric  illness  which  became  increasingly 
severe over time. 
 
6.  The Air Force diagnosed the applicant with personality traits 
disturbance  under  DSM-II  in  1984  and  not  the  long-term  pattern 
disturbance.    The  Air  Force  never  explored  co-morbidity  in  the 
case  as  the  DVA  has,  such  as  major  depression  and  PTSD,  from 
combat trauma to reconcile the contradictions in the applicant’s 
long  exemplary  career.    DoD  Directive  1332.14,  states  that  for 
members facing discharge due to personality disorder who served 
in a combat zone the diagnosis must address PTSD or other mental 
illness co-morbidity. 
 
In  support  of  his  request,  the  applicant,  through  his  counsel, 
submits  an  expanded  statement,  a  newspaper  article  describing 
improvements  made  for  disability  ratings,  several  DVA  Rating 
Decisions, extracts from his medical records, GAO Report GAO-10-
1013T, Defense Health Care, Status of Efforts to Address Lack of 
Compliance with Personality Disorder Separation Requirements, GAO 
Report GAO-09-31, Defense Health Care, Additional Efforts needed 
to  Ensure  Compliance  with  Personality  Disorder  Separation 
Requirements,  an article entitled Personality Disorders – Brief 
Historical Review, Department of the Army Record of Proceedings, 
Medical  Report  from  Dr.  A,  articles  on  Adjustment  Disorder  and 
Personality  Disorders,  extracts  from  the  applicant’s  military 
personnel records and other documents related to his request. 
 
The  applicant's  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit J.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
The  AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial, indicating the 
applicant has not met the burden of proof of a material error or 
injustice.    First,  it  is  important  to  note  that  the  delayed 
establishment of service connection for a new clinical diagnosis 
by the DVA does not automatically infer that it was an unfitting 
condition  at  the  time  of  release  from  military  service.    The 

 

9 

for 

military 

worldwide 

qualification 

Military Disability Evaluation System, established to maintain a 
fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under Title 10, United 
States  Code  (USC),  only  offer  compensation  for  those  service 
incurred  diseases  or  injuries  which  specifically  rendered  a 
member unfit for continued active service and were the cause for 
career  termination;  and  then  only  for  the  degree  of  impairment 
present  at  the  time  of  separation  and  not  based  on  future 
occurrences.  For  an  individual  to  be  considered  unfit  for 
continued military service there must be a medical condition that 
prevents  or  interferes  with  the  performance  of  duties 
commensurate with office, grade, rank, and rating; or which may 
preclude 
duties.  
Additionally, the condition could be disqualifying under AFR 35-4 
(forerunner  of  today's  AFI  48-123,  Medical  Examination  and 
Standards).    However,  in  the  applicant’s  case,  he  was 
administratively  discharged  under  provisions  of  AFR  39-10 
(forerunner of today's AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of 
Airmen) for a mental disorder that was considered  unseating for 
military service and did not render him eligible for processing 
as  a  medical  discharge.    Department  of  Defense  Instruction 
1332.38  lists  Conditions  and  Circumstances  Not  Constituting  a 
Disability and these conditions include Personality Disorders and 
Adjustment  Disorders.    The  mere  fact  that  the  nomenclature 
assigned  to  the  applicant's  mental  status  has  changed  over 
several decades, as disclosed at his July 2002 DVA Compensation & 
Pension  examination,  does  not  invalidate  the  accuracy  of  the 
diagnosis  that  resulted  in  his  separation;  a  time  during  which 
the applicant also desired to return to duty, as defended in his 
14  Apr  86  statements  associated  with  his  initial  request  to  be 
reinstated  to  active  duty.    Simply  put,  his  PTSD  was  neither 
diagnosable nor showed evidence of being an unfitting condition 
at the time of the applicant's separation; and thus should be not 
now  be  determined  as  the  alternative  cause  for  his  separation.  
Although,  over  time,  the  applicant  has  reported  signs  and 
symptoms attributed to his service in Vietnam and has achieved a 
delayed  diagnosis  of  PTSD,  it  is  not  proof  that  it  was  either 
diagnosable or unfitting at the time of his release from military 
service.    Under  Title  38,  USC,  the  DVA  is  authorized  to  offer 
compensation  for  any  medical  condition  determined  service 
incurred, without regard to [and independent of] its demonstrated 
or proven impact upon a service member's retainability, fitness 
to  serve,  narrative  reason  for  separation,  or  the  intervening 
period since the date of separation.  With this in mind, the DVA 
is authorized to award compensation ratings for conditions that 
were  not  unfitting  during  military  service  at  the  time  of 
separation, such as the case with the applicant’s PTSD.  This is

 

 
4 

the  reason  why  an  individual  can  be  released  from  military 
service  for  one  reason  and  yet  sometime  thereafter  receive  a 
compensation  rating  from  the  DVA  for  a  service-connected,  but 
militarily nonunfitting condition. 
 
The  complete  AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant’s  evaluation  is  at 
Exhibit G. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
Counsel states the advisory opinion recommends denial of relief 
arguing  that  only  the  nomenclature  assigned  to  the  applicant’s 
mental status has changed over the decades while the accuracy of 
the original diagnosis remains valid.  However, this is merely a 
play on words and the original diagnosis is framed in a different 
way.    The  opinion  never  honestly  addresses  the  question  as  to 
what  medical  condition  the  applicant  was  suffering.    After 
avoiding  Dr.  A’s  analysis,  the  advisory  opinion  trots  out  the 
standard reply that it’s not the DAV’s job to determine military 
unfitness,  but  post-service  civilian  impairment.    However,  the 
medical  opinions  of  DVA  psychologists  and  psychiatrists  are 
relevant on a limited forensic issue, that upon their review of 
military  medical  records  from  1983  to  1984,  the  DVA  found 
symptoms  demonstrating  not  a  personality  disorder,  but  a 
psychiatric disability in service.   
 
Although  Dr.  A  found  that  adjustment  disorder  may  have  been 
appropriate  in  Nov  1983,  by  early  1984  (before  discharge)  the 
applicant  was  mentally  ill  with  a  significant  psychiatric 
disorder.    By  2001,  the  DVA  chronicled  a  long  history  of  PTSD 
with  dysthymia  and  recurrent  episodes  of  major  depression 
disorder (MDD).  Dr. A concludes the first MDD episode occurred 
in 1983 to 1984 while the applicant served on active duty.  At a 
minimum, this establishes the applicant should have been assigned 
to  the  Temporary  Disability  Retirement  List  (TDRL)  in  1984  for 
five  years  as  unresolved  PTSD  manifested  in  the  applicant.  
Moreover, in 1995 and 2001 the DVA found the applicant’s military 
medical  records  demonstrated  some  form  of  a  psychiatric 
disability.  However, the advisory opinion is silent with respect 
to  Dr.  A’s  learned  analysis  and  these  DVA  determinations.    It 
simply says the unsuitable label assigned is controlling, as if 
the tail must wag the dog. 
 
The  advisory  opinion  does  not  dispute  the  applicant  served  in 
Vietnam and was repeatedly exposed to PTSD qualifying stressors.  
Nor  does  it  dispute  that  later  as  a  Combat  Arms  Maintenance 
Training  Drill  Master,  the  applicant’s  job  was  to  maintain  and 
fire  weapons  and  recreate  combat  conditions  to  train  security 
forces  against  air  base  attacks.    There  is  no  dispute  the 
surrounding  circumstances  of  the  psychological  examination  for 
firearms  access  in  1983,  and  the  altercation  at  a  firing  range 
over  safety,  and  the  applicant’s  perceived  unresolved  anger  to 

 

9 

the  safety  and  welfare  of  his  isolated  stateside  family  and 
spouse, who was a Vietnamese refugee.   
 
During  this  time,  the  applicant  was  experiencing  the  early 
progression  of  PTSD  manifested  by  intense  but  generalized 
psychological distress, anxiety and depression over life events, 
together  with  physiological  bodily  reactions,  suicidal  and 
homicidal  intent,  not  full  blown  recurrent  flashbacks  and 
nightmares,  and  dissociation  and  psychoses.    Instead,  the 
advisory  opinion  demands  a  simplistic  one-size-fits-all  PTSD.  
This  ignores  the  fact  that  PTSD  is  frequently  a  progressive 
disease, as in this case. 
 
The advisory opinion admits the applicant experienced a delayed 
onset of PTSD, but it argues this is not proof that it was either 
diagnosable  or  unfitting  at  the  time.    This  brings  the  opinion 
full  circle  back  to  the  underlying  medical  mistake  the 
applicant’s condition was diagnosable with a personality disorder 
and separated for that reason.   
 
However, when it comes to PTSD, an initial diagnosis of anxiety 
and or depression is frequently made; only after passage of time 
is  the  PTSD  diagnosis  evident.    The  probable  onset  of  the 
applicant’s PTSD was in 1983, and the initial symptoms were the 
beginning  of  major  depression  and  PTSD.    His  symptoms  were 
significant,  but  not  sufficiently  clear  to  diagnose  PTSD.    The 
major  depression  rendered  the  applicant  unfit  for  continued 
military service and would likely qualify for a disability rating 
of 25-50 percent. 
 
Furthermore,  PTSD  was  not  introduced  until  1980  and  remained 
controversial, 
criteria.  
Consideration of this unique situation falls within the broader 
role of the AFBCMR to measure the injustice of a belated Vietnam-
era PTSD diagnosis after growing institutional understanding and 
acceptance.  According to Dr. A, delayed onset PTSD is often a 
progressive disease, but frequently it is initially diagnosed as 
anxiety and or depression and is only evident as PTSD after the 
passage of time.  This is supported by the fact that PTSD is not 
limited  to  the  common  conscious  reliving  of  the  original 
traumatic  event,  but  can  include  unconscious  responses  such  as 
intense psychological distress or physiological reactivity.   
 
The  six  year  period  from  1984  to  1991,  the  applicant  suffered 
from  major  depression  and  his  inability  to  maintain  steady 
employment.    The  applicant’s  inability  to  maintain  steady 
employment in addition to his depressive symptoms supported the 
finding  of  the  DVA  rating  decision  in  Aug  1995.    The  Board  of 
Veterans  Appeals  (BOVA)  determined  from  the  findings  of  acute 
situational depression and military job impairment, the applicant 
demonstrated  some  form  of  psychiatric  disorder  while  he  was  in 
the service. 
 

acceptance 

and 

with 

evolving 

 

 
6 

Counsel cites the 2009 Sabo v. United States case, a class-action 
suit settled by DOD allowing former members medically discharged 
from  Dec  2002  to  2008  for  PTSD,  but  awarded  less  than  a  50 
percent rating as applicable in the applicant’s case.  The suit 
alerted DOD to past military agency error in rating PTSD.  As a 
result,  in  2009,  DOD  began  enforcing  the  overlooked  federal 
regulation to award 50 percent for PTSD prior to discharge.  Sabo 
v. United States is retroactive to Dec 2002, so the applicant’s 
discharge  date  makes  him  ineligible  as  a  class  member  of  the 
settlement for PTSD ratings.  Although not strictly eligible as a 
claimant  for  this  court-sanctioned  review,  the  underlying 
equitable issue remains before the AFBCMR.   
 
The applicant is also similarly situated to an applicant to the 
ABCMR,  a  decorated  Vietnam  veteran,  who  subsequently  became  a 
drill  instructor  and  was  ultimately  misdiagnosed  with  a 
personality disorder.  The BCMR corrected his record to show that 
he suffered a delayed onset of PTSD.   
 
Lastly, counsel states the applicant was an elite noncommissioned 
officer who served honorably and his records should be corrected 
to  reflect  the  proper  medical  disability  diagnosis  with 
retirement. 
 
The counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit I. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
 
After  reviewing  this  application  and  the  evidence  provided  in 
support  of  his  appeal,  we  remain  unpersuaded  the  applicant’s 
discharge should be changed to reflect that he was retired due to 
physical  disability.    After  a  thorough  review  of  the 
documentation submitted in support of his most recent appeal, to 
include  his  response  to  the  advisory  opinion  rendered  in  this 
case, we do not believe he has overcome the rationale expressed 
in our previous decision.  In making such determination, we find 
the medical findings rendered at the time of final disposition, 
carry  the  most  weight,  as  they  were  rendered  by  individuals 
closest to the situation at the time, with firsthand knowledge.  
In  the  applicant’s  case,  the  evidence  of  record  reveals  he 
experienced  psychological  stressors  when  faced  with  separation 
from  his  foreign  born  wife  while  on  assignment.    During  this 
separation  and  as  a  result  of  several  acts  of  misconduct,  and 
concerns for his access to military firearms, the applicant was 
referred  for  mental  health  evaluation  and  was  subsequently 
diagnosed with an adjustment disorder.  We note that “Personality 
Disorder”  was  used  to  characterize  all  unsuiting  mental  health 
disorders  on  the  DD  Form  214  at  the  time  of  the  applicant’s 
discharge,  even  in  cases  such  as  his  when  the  diagnosis  was 
adjustment disorder, not personality disorder.   
 

 

9 

While we note the evidence of record reveals that subsequent to 
his discharge the applicant reported signs and symptoms that he 
attributed  to  his  service  in  Vietnam  and  he  has  achieved  a 
diagnosis of PTSD by the Department of Veteran Affairs, it is not 
proof  that  he  manifested  the  clinical  signs  and  symptoms  the 
disorder nor was it unfitting at the time of his discharge from 
military  service.    Additionally,  we  note  that  although  the  Air 
Force is required to rate disabilities in accordance with the DVA 
Schedule  for  Rating  Disabilities,  the  DVA  operates  under  a 
totally  separate  system  with  a  different  statutory  basis.    In 
this  respect,  we  note  the  DVA  rates  for  any  and  all  service-
connected  conditions,  to  the  degree  they  interfere  with  future 
employability, without regard to is proven or demonstrated impact 
upon  a  service  member’s  retainability,  fitness  to  serve  or 
narrative reason for release from military service; whereas,under 
Title 10 U.S.C, the Air Force rates a condition only when it has 
been  determined  unfitting  for  further  mililitary  service;  and 
then  only  to  the  degree  present  at  the  time  of  release  from 
military  service.    We  also  note  the  comments  and  supporting 
statement  by  the  applicant’s  civilian  physician  indicating  his 
belief the applicant’s current condition is attributable to his 
service in Vietnam.  However, this statement, rendered many years 
after the fact, combined with the documentary evidence before us, 
is  not  sufficient  for  us  to  conclude  that  his  post-traumatic 
stress  disorder  (PTSD)  contributed  to  his  misconduct  or  the 
diagnosis that precipitated his administrative discharge or that 
it  serves  to  substantiate  the  applicant  should  be  retired  for 
physical disability.  As such, we find action and disposition in 
the  applicant’s  case  to  be  in  compliance  with  the  Air  Force 
regulations  in  effect  at  the  time  of  his  discharge.    While  we 
note  Counsel’s  argument  that  a  recent  GAO  Report  recommends 
military  members  facing  discharge  for  personality  disorder  be 
evaluated  for  post-traumatic  stress  disorder  and  the  findings 
reviewed  by  the  Surgeon  General,  we  find  no  relevancy  to  his 
argument  since  the  applicant  was  discharged  over  25  year  ago.  
Additionally,  the  GAO  study  along  with  the  recommendation  was 
conducted based on studies of soldiers who served in Afghanistan 
and Iraq and the findings along with the recommendations are not 
applied retroactively to every member who faced combat service.  
Moreover,  we  are  unable  to  link  the  applicant’s  case,  or 
relevancy thereof, to the 2009  Sabo  v.  United  States case.  As 
Counsel points out, the noted case is relevant to those who were 
discharged  for  physical  disability  because  of  their  unfitting 
PTSD diagnosis.  However, in view of the fact we have determined 
the  applicant’s  discharge  for  his  unsuiting  condition  was 
appropriate  to  the  circumstances,  the  noted  case  has  no 
applicability  to  the  applicant’s  situation.    Finally,  Counsel 
contends  the  applicant  is  similarly  situated  to  a  former  Army 
Soldier  who  successfully  appealed  for  similar  relief  from  the 
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).  However, 
while  the  ABCMR  found  clear  evidence  of  a  diagnosis  of  combat 
fatigue associated with the Soldier’s combat service in Vietnam, 
followed by several hospitalizations for psychiatric reasons, as 
well  as  a  concerted  effort  by  the  Army  in  subsequent  years  to 

 

 
8 

find the right assignment and classification for the Soldier for 
the changes being exhibited in his personality, the applicant has 
shown no such causal relationship between his service in Vietnam 
in  1970  and  his  adjustment  disorder  diagnosis  some  13  years 
later.  In fact, contrary to the circumstances in the noted case, 
Counsel has argued that the applicant’s service over the course 
of  the  years  between  his  service  in  Vietnam  and  his  adjustment 
disorder diagnosis was impeccable and has presented no evidence 
to  indicate  there  were  similar  circumstances  at  play  in  the 
applicant’s  case.    We  note  the  statement  provided  by  Dr.  A. 
indicating that in his opinion the onset of the applicant’s PTSD 
was in 1983 and was exacerbated over several years.  However, the 
Air  Force  physicians  who  diagnosed  the  applicant  with  having  a 
personality  disorder  were  fully  qualified  professionals  and 
determined upon examination the applicant in fact did suffer from 
adjustment disorder.  In view of these facts and in the absence 
of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  are  not  inclined  to  substitute 
our judgment for that of responsible officials some twenty-eight 
(28)  years  after  the  event  in  question,  especially  since  the 
evidence provided does not support that they were not qualified 
and  failed  to  properly  discharge  their  duties  and  properly 
handled the applicant’s case.  Counsel’s many arguments are duly 
noted;  however,  we  do  not  find  these  arguments  and  the 
documentation presented sufficient to convince us that competent 
authority  should  have  found  the  applicant  unfit  for  military 
service  for  PTSD  at  the  time  of  his  discharge.    Therefore,  we 
find  no  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this 
application. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 
 
The applicant be notified the additional 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 
Numbers  BC-1986-01455 and BC-1996-00399 in Executive Session on 
6 Aug 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
 

, Panel Chair 
, Member 
, Member 

 

9 

 

 

 undated. 

The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR  Docket 
Numbers BC-1986-01455 and BC-1996-00399 was considered: 
 
Exhibit G.  Record of Proceedings (ROP) (BC-1986-01455),  
 
  
 
Exhibit H.  Addendum to ROP (BC-1986-01455), dated 18 Aug 87. 
 
Exhibit I.  ROP (BC-1996-00399), dated 3 Apr 97, w/atchs. 
 
Exhibit J.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Feb 11, w/atchs. 
 
Exhibit K.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant,  
 
 
  
    Exhibit L.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Nov 11. 
    Exhibit M.  Letter, Counsel, dated 10 Dec 11, w/atchs. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Panel Chair 

 dated 14 Nov 11. 

 
  

   
 

 
 

 

 

 

 

10