RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02199

	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated to active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The medical condition for which he was discharged was proven false after his discharge.

The applicant states that he was diagnosed with asthma; however, after he separated, it was proven that the condition was a side effect of a medication he was taking at the time.  Proper procedures were not followed during his Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).  In addition, his request for retainability and cross-training were denied.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 27 March 1996, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of 4 years.

On 30 March 1999, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened and recommended the applicant be referred to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) based on the diagnosis of asthma, mild, persistent.

On 9 April 1999, an IPEB convened and based on the diagnosis of asthma, mild, persistent, recommended the applicant be discharged with severance pay, with a 10% disability rating.  On 12 April 1999, the applicant agreed with the findings of the IPEB and waived his right to a Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB).

On 13 April 1999, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council determined the applicant should be discharged with severance pay, with a disability rating of 10%.

On 1 June 1999, the applicant was honorably discharged in the grade of senior airman under the provisions of AFI 36-3212 (Disability, Severance Pay). 

On 28 September 2000, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) awarded the applicant an overall combined compensable disability rating of 30% (i.e., hypertension, lumbar strain with degenerative disc disease, asthma, and heart damage).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that although the diagnosis of the applicant’s asthma appears to have been made without the benefit of all possible information and while he was taking a potentially contributing medication, there remains the underlying problem of hypertension for which he continues to require multiple medications to control.  The applicant entered the military with at least borderline problems which fully manifested themselves within a very few months of entry.  Based on the applicant’s need for current multiple medications to control his problem, he is rendered unfit for continued military service without regard to any hypothetical diagnosis of asthma, and could well have been processed for disability separation for that condition as well as the one for which he was separated.

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

AFPC/DPPD recommends the applicant be allowed to apply for active duty through an Air Force Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS), where he can be reexamined within military channels to determine if he can meet current medical standards for active duty.  The new medical evidence provided by the applicant was presented to an IPEB for a second opinion.  The IPEB agreed that the new medical evidence may indicate a misdiagnosis for Asthma; however, there is still the question about the applicant’s current condition for hypertension, and how the stress of military service could affect his overall fitness.  The IPEB concluded that if the applicant still wants to return to active duty, there is nothing to preclude him from seeking entry on active duty via normal channels as a prior service enlistee.  It was determined that if he can meet current medical enlistment standards, he should be allowed to return to active duty.  The IPEB also recommended that any reference to his asthma diagnosis remain within his military medical records, in the event that he is returned to active duty and the condition should reappear.

The AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPRS states that since the applicant has requested reinstatement due to medical reasons, they will leave any recommendations to the medical authorities.  However, based upon the documentation in the file, the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  In addition, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 15 November 2001 for review and response within 30 days.  However, as of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he should be reinstated to active duty.  Regardless of whether the applicant was misdiagnosed with Asthma, based on his current condition for Hypertension, and how the stress of military service could affect his overall fitness, there remains reasonable doubt as to whether he meets current medical standards for active duty.  In view of this, we do not believe he should be reinstated to active duty.  However, the applicant may apply for active duty through an Air Force Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) where he can be reexamined within military channels to determine if he meets current enlistment standards.  Whether or not he is successful will depend on the needs of the service and his ability to meet medical standards.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable 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 17 January 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

Panel Chair
Member
Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Jul 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 6 Sep 01.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 3 Oct 01.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 Oct 01.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Nov 01.