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

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00966-2
INDEX CODE:  108.00
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX				COUNSEL: XXXXX

XXX-XX-XXXX					HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His administrative discharge (honorable) be changed to a disability retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 22 March 1997, the applicant was honorably discharged by reason of a personality disorder.  He had served 2 years, 3 months and 23 days on active duty.

A similar appeal was considered and denied by the Board on 27 August 2003.  For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, and, the rationale for the earlier decision by the Board, see Exhibit F.

The applicant submitted an undated request for reconsideration, indicating a new mental health evaluation summarizes that an attack he sustained while in the military caused possible psychological trauma, which contributed to his personality change and ongoing personality problems.  To support his request, the applicant provides a copy of his psychological evaluation dated 14 August 2003.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the applicant’s records is warranted.  The BCMR Medical Consultant states that the applicant was properly discharged for unsuitability in March 1977 due to Adjustment Disorder and Personality Disorder.  His diagnosis of dysthymia six years after his discharge, as indicated in his psychological evaluation used in his reconsideration request, is not evidence that the applicant suffered from an undiagnosed mental disorder such as dysthymia that would have warranted evaluation in the disability system.  It is the opinion of the BCMR Medical Consultant that action and disposition in this case were proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant disagrees with the BCMR Medical Consultant’s claims the service medical records contain no entries for care of head trauma or sequelae for head trauma such as concussion or headache and there is also no reference to head injury in any of the documentation.  The applicant states there was a counseling session between him and his supervisor dated 23 May 1996 indicating that he had gotten into a fight that probably left him with a blood clot in his head.  A copy of the applicant’s rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit I.  

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

In earlier findings, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence to change the applicant’s administrative discharge to a disability retirement.  After a careful reconsideration of his request and his most recent submission, we do not find it sufficiently compelling to warrant a revision of the Board’s earlier determination in this case.  While it may be true that the applicant suffered an injury on active duty, this fact, alone, is not sufficient to warrant approval of the requested relief.  We note that then, as now, an individual’s condition at the time of separation or final disposition governs whether the member is referred for disability processing.  While it appears that the applicant’s condition has deteriorated over time, we are unpersuaded that the diagnoses of his condition in 1997 were erroneous or, based on accepted medical principles, contrary to the symptoms the applicant exhibited at that time.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion of the BCMR Medical Consultant that action and disposition in this case were proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 27 July 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

	Vice Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00966-2 was considered:

	Exhibit F.  Record of Proceedings, dated 15 Aug 91,
                with Exhibits A through E.
	Exhibit G.  Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration, undated,
	            with attachment.
	Exhibit H.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 Nov 03.
	Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Feb 2004.
	Exhibit J.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, undated, with attachments. 

						
									Vice Chair