ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2018-02449-2

XXXX X. XXXXXXX	COUNSEL: YES
	
	HEARING REQUESTED: YES
APPLICANT’S REQUEST

The Board reconsider her request to amend her discharge to reflect she was medically retired, effective 2011, and award all attendant rights and benefits of a medical retiree.  

RESUME OF THE CASE

The applicant is a former Air Force Reserve senior airman, honorably discharged with severance pay on 25 Apr 11.  On 15 May 19, the Board considered and denied her initial request for either a medical retirement or, in the alternative, retroactive promotion to staff sergeant, finding that the applicant provided insufficient evidence of an error or injustice to justify relief and her request was not timely submitted.

For an accounting of the applicant’s original request and the rationale of the earlier decision, see the SAF/MRBC Letter and Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F. 

On 19 Sep 19, the applicant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of her request for a medical retirement [sic].  She again contends the Air Force improperly gave the applicant severance instead of a medical retirement and she was not in the right state of mind to be able to process the injustice or appeal the injustice.  She was suffering from extreme psychological and physical ailments, at the time of discharge.  To this day, she still suffers from severe Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), to include memory loss, anxiety, narcolepsy, and poor concentration.  One of the biggest factors that contributed to her inability to file this appeal within the required time limitations is due to her sleep disorder (narcolepsy), the very subject of the Air Force’s distinct error in rating her medical conditions in 2011.        

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit G.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The AFBCMR Psychological Advisor recommends denying the applicant’s request for a medical retirement finding insufficient evidence to support her request with regard to any mental health condition.  The applicant and her legal counsel however, are not contending that her PTSD or any other mental health conditions were unfitting for continued military service.  However, if this were to be the case, there is insufficient evidence that she had any unfitting mental health conditions.  During her time in the service, there are no records that she received any mental health treatment or diagnosis.  She was never placed on duty limiting conditions profile for a mental health condition, and not deemed not worldwide qualified for duty due to a mental health condition.  Her commander’s statement dated on 21 Jan 09 did not report any mental health conditions that interfered with her ability to reasonably perform her military duties in accordance to her rank, grade, rating, or office, and the applicant in her rebuttal to Formal Physical Evaluation Board’s (FPEB) decision did not mention any mental health concerns.  The Advisor recommends the Board review the medical advisory again as it pertains to the applicant’s current request for reconsideration (narcolepsy).

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit I.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 22 Jan 20, with the consolidated clarifying guidance, for comment (Exhibit I), and the applicant’s counsel replied on 28 Feb 20.  In their response, counsel calls into question the advisory opinion stating it erroneously focuses on her PTSD and other mental health conditions.  The applicant does not claim that the PTSD or other mental health issues met the criteria for a medical retirement, the issue is her mental health issues prevented her from filing her appeal within the 3-year deadline.  The applicant argues that her narcolepsy rating of zero percent is flawed and should be given a more substantial rating.  

The counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit J.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board remains unconvinced the evidence presented demonstrates an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of the previous Medical Advisor opinion that the applicant’s narcolepsy rating was appropriate at the time of her medical discharge and the applicant was provided full due process during her Disability Evaluation System (DES) processing afforded levels of appeal.  We further wish to highlight that in the Board original decision, we reviewed the merits of the applicant’s request and took into consideration all of her physical and psychological conditions before deciding it was not in the interest of justice to waive the three-year filing requirement.  We still find the new evidence presented does not warrant a change in the applicant’s narcolepsy rating at discharge and therefore, a change to her medical separation.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

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 Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

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-2018-02449-2 in Executive Session on 15 Apr 20:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit F:	Letter, SAF/MRBC w/ROP and Exhibits, dated 28 May 19.
Exhibit G:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 19 Sep 19.
Exhibit H:	Advisory opinion, AFBCMR Psychological Advisor, dated 15 Jan 20.
Exhibit I:	Notification of advisory, dated w/atchs, 22 Jan 20.
Exhibit J:	Counsel’s response, dated 28 Feb 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.