THIRD ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02990-4

	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING REQUESTED: YES	

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

The Board reconsider his request to change:

1)	His Separation Designation Number (SDN) 265 to SDN 273; and, 

2)	Change his reentry (RE) code to reflect a discharge for an unfitting mental health condition. 

RESUME OF THE CASE

On 8 Apr 69, according to Special Court-Martial Order No. 1, the applicant was found guilty of being absent without leave from 4 – 19 Mar 69.  The applicant was subsequently reduced to airman and restricted two months. 

On 9 May 69, 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 Aug 71, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) upgraded the applicant’s discharge characterization to honorable. 

On 7 Jan 72, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) considered and denied the applicant’s requests that he be compensated for his severe paranoid personality disorder and that documentation of a psychiatric severe personality disorder be removed from his records.

On 4 Feb 76, 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 Oct 76, 20 Nov 78, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request for disability retirement in lieu of his honorable discharge.

On 14 Mar 80, 20 Jun 88, 15 May 89, the applicant was denied reconsideration of his request for disability retirement.

On 21 Aug 02, 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 Sep 08, the Board considered and denied his request for a medical retirement, a change to his narrative reason for separation, RE code, award of the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM), completed basic training, completed career development courses, and promotion to the grade of sergeant.

On 20 May 10, 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 Jun 11, the Board considered and denied his request for a medical retirement, his Airman Performance Report (APR) closing 1 Dec 68 be removed from his records, a change to his narrative reason for separation, RE code, promotion, and leave restored.

On 26 Feb 14, the Board considered and denied his request for reconsideration to change his DD Form 214 to reflect staff sergeant and a medical retirement finding that the applicant provided no new and relevant evidence.  

For an accounting of the applicant’s original request and the rationale of the earlier decision, see the AFBCMR Letter and Record of Proceedings at Exhibit L 

On 21 Sep 18, the applicant requested reconsideration of his request to change his DD Form 214 SDN and reason for discharge.  He contends the AFBMCR Medical Consultant’s opinion recommended this change in his prior case and there remains a stigma with SDN 265, an Article 15, and an Article 86 based upon an erroneous/inconclusive diagnosed Paranoid Personality Disorder.    

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit M.

On 3 Sep 14, the Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum providing guidance to the Military Department Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records as they carefully consider each petition regarding discharge upgrade requests by veterans claiming Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  In addition, time limits to reconsider decisions will be liberally waived for applications covered by this guidance.

On 25 Aug 17, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD P&R) issued clarifying guidance to Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records considering requests by veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole or in part to mental health conditions [PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual assault, or sexual harassment].  Liberal consideration will be given to veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on the aforementioned conditions.

Currently, service members diagnosed with mental health conditions receive heightened screening to ensure the causal relationship of possible symptoms and discharge basis is fully considered, and characterization of service is appropriate. Veterans discharged under prior procedures, or before verifiable diagnosis, may not have suffered an error because the separation authority was unaware of their condition or experience at the time of discharge.  However, when compared to similarly situated individuals under current standards, they may be the victim of injustice because commanders fully informed of such conditions and causal relationships today may opt for a less prejudicial discharge to ensure the veteran retains certain benefits, such as medical care.

Liberal consideration does not mandate an upgrade.  Relief may be appropriate, however, for minor misconduct commonly associated with the aforementioned mental health conditions and some significant misconduct sufficiently justified or outweighed by the facts and circumstances.  

On 25 Jul 18, the USD P&R issued further guidance with the intent to set clear standards.  

On 26 Mar 20, the AFBCMR staff provided the applicant copies of the Board guidance memoranda since they apply in his case (see Exhibit O).

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The AFBCMR Psychological Advisor recommends granting the application.  The applicant has petitioned to the AFBCMR multiple times requesting various changes to this record.  This advisory will address his current requests for a change of narrative reason for discharge and RE code change.  Several petitions ago, the applicant received a comprehensive advisory from the BCMR Medical Consultant, dated on 08 Apr 08.  This psychological advisor highly recommends the Board review this past advisory again as an in-depth discussion of applicant’s mental history, treatment, and diagnoses were performed to provide a holistic clinical picture of the applicant’s functioning and presentation at the snapshot in time of service.  After a review of all available records, the psychological advisor fully concurs with the previous medical consultant opinion.

Many mental health conditions share many similar symptoms and may easily be confused with another condition especially since it appeared the onset of the applicant’s symptoms began to manifest itself during service.  Further complicating matters was the existence of PTSD, the concluding diagnosis established after numerous mental health assessments over the years at the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) albeit other diagnoses (Schizophrenic Reaction, Schizoaffective Disorder, etc.) were suggested as well, was not introduced into the psychological nomenclature and literature until 1980. This was approximately 11 years after the applicant was discharge from service.  The applicant was displaying symptoms of paranoia, hypervigilance, delusions, perceptual distortions, etc., developed as a result of exposure to traumatic experiences from his overseas military duties in Thailand in 1968 that is now understood as symptoms of PTSD.  The medical consultant recommended to the Board to grant his request for a change of his narrative reason to a medical discharge with a 10 percent disability rating (severance) based on the disability rating the applicant received from the DVA on 26 Aug 69, assigned three months post discharge and is the closest compensation and pension examination to his discharge time.

On 25 Sep 08, the Board adjudicated the applicant’s case with consideration from the medical advisory and denied applicant’s request once more.  The rationale of the board’s decision stated that should hypothetically the applicant was allowed to enter into the Disability Evaluation System (DES), a dual action case would have proceeded and in which an administrative discharge would have been the prevailing outcome.  This psychological advisor does not dispute the Board’s decision based on the regulations, policies, and procedures at the time of adjudication.  However, new guidance, regulations, policies, and procedures has since been introduced and enacted from this previous adjudication with the medical advisory that would now allow for another review under new circumstances.

Should the Board grant, recommend changing the narrative reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority, his RE code changed to align with the corrected narrative reason, and grant the applicant a 10 percent disability rating for PTSD under VASRD code 9411.  

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit N.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 9 Apr 20 for comment (Exhibit O), but has received no response.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant has presented evidence sufficient to demonstrate an error or injustice.  In particular, the Board agrees with the rationale and recommendation of the AFBCMR Psychological Advisor that the applicant had an unfitting mental health condition at discharge, which viewed through the lens of liberal consideration, is sufficient to justify changing the original findings and recommendation of the Board.  Therefore, the Board recommends the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.

The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

RECOMMENDATION

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that: 

a.	On 8 May 1969, he was found unfit to perform the duties of his office, rank, grade, or rating by reason of physical disability, incurred while he was entitled to receive basic pay; that the diagnosis in his case was Schizophrenic reaction, undifferentiated type, VASRD code 9204, rated at 10 percent; that the degree of impairment was permanent; that the disability was not due to intentional misconduct or willful neglect; that the disability was not incurred during a period of unauthorized absence; and that the disability was not received as a direct result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war. 

b.	On 9 May 1969, he was discharged due to physical disability – entitled to severance payment, with a 10 percent compensable disability rating.

c.	His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, issued in conjunction with his 9 May 1969 discharge, be amended in item 11c., to reflect SDN 273 rather than SDN 265 and in item 15 to reflect 2Q rather than 2.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2007-02990-4 in Executive Session on 19 Aug 20:

	, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit L:	Record of Proceedings, w/ Exhibits A-K, dated 26 Feb 14.
Exhibit M:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 21 Sep 18.
Exhibit N:	Advisory opinion, AFBMCR Psychological Advisor, 19 Dec 19.
Exhibit O:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, w/atchs, dated 9 Apr 20. 

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.