RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-03372
		INDEX CODE:  108.O1
	 	COUNSEL:

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be retired from the United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR) in the grade of technical sergeant and he be entitled to all the benefits thereof.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was denied reenlistment in the USAFR in February 1986 because of medical problems.  He was under a physicians care for several years for control of hypertension.  The medications he was taking were controlling the high blood pressure with both the systolic and diastolic pressures within both civil and military definitions of "normal."  However, the medical standards that were applied when he tried to reenlist are unreasonable and unjust.  The systolic standard for disqualification for flight personnel is, if it is greater than 140mm Hg, after treatment and if the diastolic pressure is greater than 90mm Hg.  Yet for enlisted personnel the disqualifying factor is 140 over 90mm Hg, at any age, without consideration of treatment.  Disqualification for worldwide service and continued active duty occurs if the diastolic pressure is consistently more than 110mm Hg following an adequate period of therapy in an ambulatory status.  As evidenced by his medical records, his blood pressure was consistently below 110mm Hg.  Standards for enlistment in the USAFR require a 5-day blood pressure reading to be recorded.  No such reading was ever conducted, thus denying him a fair review of his medical condition and a medical evaluation.

Applicant states that there appears to be a racial pattern of differences in hypertension between White and Black Americans which may have resulted in racial discrimination with regard to enlistment in the USAFR.

In support of his request applicant provided, a personal statement, documents associated with his denial of reenlistment, extracts from his medical records, documents associated with his Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request; a copy of AFR 160-43, Medical Examination and Medical Standards; documents associated with AFR 160-43 interim message changes and policy letters, printouts from websites; and, AFI 48-123, Medical Examination Standards.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 18 Aug 52.  On 17 Aug 56 he was released from active duty and transferred to the Obligated Reserve Section (ORS) of the USAFR.  On 17 Aug 60, he reenlisted in the USAFR and his name was placed on the active Reserve list.  He continuously served various assignments within the USAFR until he was transferred to the Inactive Status List Reserve Section (ISLRS) on 4 Sep 68, due to nonparticipation.  On 3 Jun 70, he was honorably discharged from the USAFR.  Applicant has completed 16 years of honorable Federal service and was credited with a total of 12 years of satisfactory Federal service.

Applicant reached the age of 60 on 6 Jun 94.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/DPZ reviewed applicant’s request and recommends denial.  DPZ states that he has not provided any documentation that would warrant a change in the initial medical assessment at the time he was disallowed to reenlist in the USAFR in 1986.  The DPZ evaluation is at see Exhibit C.

The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.  The Medical Consultant states that the applicant confuses the medical standards for enlistment with that for continued service, arguing that the standards for continued service should have applied in his case.  AFR 160-43, which was applicable in his case, is clear on when medical standards for enlistment as opposed to the standards for continued service will be applied when there is a break in service.  The AFI also establishes entry criteria provided no more than 93 days has elapsed between the release date and when no more than 180 days have elapsed.  Some waiver authority is allowed for cases exceeding 180 days.  AFI 48-23, which superceded AFR 160-43, more clearly states that the enlistment standards are to be used for a break in service greater than 6 months.  The applicant's break in service has been more than 16 years.  

Repeated blood pressure readings are required for establishing a diagnosis of hypertension or for establishing satisfactory control by diet or drug therapy.  Since he had an established diagnosis of hypertension and was being treated, no further testing was required.  Hypertension whether treated or untreated was disqualifying for enlistment under AFR 16-43 and is still disqualifying under AFI 48-123.  He also has a diagnosis of gout, which is disqualifying for enlistment.  His contention that hypertension occurs more frequently in Black Americans is true.  The fact that hypertension is a disqualifying medical condition for enlistment is due to reasons related to complications of hypertension that render individuals unfit for worldwide duty.  The fact that he, in retrospect, did not suffer complications of hypertension during the time he may have served had he been accepted back into the Air Force, has no bearing on judging the decision to disqualify him for enlistment.  The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In further support of his request, applicant provided additional extracts from his medical records.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive 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 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 Docket Number 01-03591 in Executive Session on 25 Apr 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Oct 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFRC/DPZ, dated 14 Jan 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Feb 02.
    Exhibit E.  BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 5 Mar 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 02.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Counsel, dated 15 Apr 02, w/atchs.