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

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04117

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His AF Form 707, Officer Performance Report (OPR) (Lt thru Col), rendered for the period 14 July 2011 through 1 February 2012, be declared void and removed from his record.  

His Joint Credit Departure Reason Code be changed from “Q” Early reassignment due to suspension from duty (no credit) to “S” Early reassignment for hardship, humanitarian, compassionate or medical reasons, without Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) waiver, and with 18.4 months of accrued credit.

He be awarded a Joint Meritorious Service Medal (JMSM) for his service in Berlin.

He be considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for Calendar Year 2012B (CY12B) Below-the-Promotion Zone (BTZ) and Calendar Year 2013C (CY13C) In-the-Promotion Zone (IPZ) Colonel Central Selection Boards (CSBs).

RESUME OF CASE:

On 24 June 2015, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s original request to have his OPR removed, his departure code changed, be awarded a JMSM, and be given SSB consideration.  The Board took note of the applicant’s contention that his leadership failed to recognize the required medical attention he needed when he indicated he had a problem (alcoholism).  The Board further noted the BCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant’s favorable recommendation; however, the Board was not convinced that the actions of the applicant’s leadership were inappropriate or unfair.  It was the Board’s belief that the applicant could have taken action to avail himself and thereby denied his request.  For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s original request and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit I.

On 9 December 2015, by virtue of a DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military Record, the applicant requests reconsideration of the Board previous decision.  He contends a medical doctor with specialization in addiction medicine should be sought for consultation to consider his appeal because without access to such expertise the Board would be professionally challenged to render a decision. 

The applicant reiterated that his chain of command did not comply with the Department of Defense Directive and Air Force Instruction the BCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant referenced in his memorandum, dated 16 April 2015.  He further disputed the timeframe in which his leadership indicated they took the required action in regards to helping him with his condition.  Their delay caused his mental and physical condition to deteriorate further, and that his mental condition was worse than original evidence suggested.  

The applicant contends that although he claimed alcoholism as a disability, after an interview on 11 December 2014, with a civilian psychologist, he was diagnosed with “Alcohol Use Disorder” with “Unspecified Anxiety Disorder” (also referred to as “General Anxiety Disorder”).  On 24 August 2015, the applicant received notification of the DVA’s decision to award him a disability rating of zero percent for allergic rhinitis, and alcohol use disorder in remission, and unspecified anxiety disorder.  He subsequently appealed the DVA rating.  

Lastly, he contends SAF/MRBR mismanaged his appeal because the psychological opinion should have been prepared prior to the other advisories.  The AFPC opinions were researched and drafted without knowledge of the violations by his chain of command and without expert opinion.  Consideration for his appeal should be given for his medical and mental health.  

In an undated letter, the applicant submitted a DVA determined his service connection for alcohol use disorder in remission, and unspecified anxiety disorder to be increased from zero percentage to ten percent disabling.  

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, are at Exhibits J and K.  

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After again reviewing the applicant’s request and the totality of the evidence provided, we are not convinced that the evidence and additional arguments presented by the applicant is sufficient to conclude that relief is appropriate.  In this respect, we note the applicant submits a disability rating letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for his alcohol use disorder in remission, and unspecified anxiety disorder which increased from zero to ten percent.  However, the applicant is reminded that the DVA disability evaluation system operates under Title 38 and is authorized to provide continuing medical care and assistance to all eligible Veterans.  The DVA is empowered to periodically re-evaluate Veterans for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating should the degree of impairment vary over time.  Therefore, the applicant has not presented sufficient evidence to support that the original decision to deny his request was wrong and he has not met the threshold that would give rise to reconsider our previous decision.  Therefore, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.  

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence did not meet the criteria for reconsideration 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-2013-04117 in Executive Session on 2 March 2017 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-04117 was considered:

	Exhibit I.  Record of Proceedings, dated 9 November 2015, 
                 w/atchs.
	Exhibit J.  DD Form 149, dated 9 December 2015, w/atchs.
	Exhibit K.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.  

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.
1 2