RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  02-01388
		INDEX CODE 108.01 108.02 108.10
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 1968 discharge for physical disability, existed prior to service (EPTS), be changed to a medical retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was physically and mentally sound when he enlisted, but was unsound and incapacitated at the time of his discharge due to adverse mental and physical reactions to injections he received during his medical exam. His reduced mental state made him unable to understand or deal with anything. The allergies listed as EPTS were not sufficient to warrant discharge, but were aggravated during Air Force testing.  His 100% disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) was caused by being injected with tetanus, despite his proclaimed allergy to the toxin. The reasons for discharge are inaccurate and need to be corrected.

His complete submission, with attachments, are at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On his 4 Sep 68 enlistment medical history form, the applicant indicated he had, or did have, sinusitis, hay fever, shortness of breath and reaction to serum, drug or medicine. He had originally marked “Yes” to asthma and then changed it to “No.” The physician noted the applicant advised that skin tests as a child showed multiple allergies to certain foods, trees, dust and animals, but with no history at present except mild congestion and sneezing. Further, the applicant related he had no history of sinusitis, hay fever, or allergies for the last 1½ years and had taken allergy injections until then.

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 6 Nov 68 for a period of four years.

Apparently some time after his induction, the applicant indicated he was allergic to tetanus shots. A 13 Nov 68 medical entry reflects that the applicant indicated he had an allergic reaction “13 months ago after receiving some tetanus preparation at a hospital Emergency Room without preliminary testing.” The physician also indicated his impression of “no evidence of hypersensitivity to tetanus toxoid.” The physician recommended separation because he did not feel the applicant would be “able to perform military service successfully and hypersensitization would be difficult due to marked sensitivities on skin test.”  The applicant was tested, and reacted to, various allergy skin tests performed on 15 Nov 68. 

The military medical records currently available do not appear to reflect that, while in the service, the applicant was ever given and/or had a reaction to a tetanus/diphtheria injection or was hospitalized or treated for urticaria, swelling and difficult breathing as a result of such an incident.  The skin tests performed on 15 Nov 68 did not include a tetanus skin test.

A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) examination was conducted on 25 Nov 68.  The physician noted the applicant conveyed a past history of generalized urticaria and angio necrotic edema occurring approximately 13 months ago [before entering the military] after receiving a type of tetanus preparation at an emergency room. The physician also indicated the applicant had not experienced a significant illness or injury since induction. The MEB recommended the applicant be discharged for allergic rhinitis and asthma, EPTS, because they believed his chronic, progressive condition made him a poor risk for continued military service. 

Also on 25 Nov 68, the applicant applied for a disability discharge. This time, the applicant marked on his medical history form that he had been treated for allergies and asthma. He waived his right to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and indicated his understanding that he would be discharged for physical disability without disability retirement or severance pay.

He was honorably discharged on 4 Dec 68 for physical disability, EPTS (allergic rhinitis and asthma). He had 1 month and 27 days of active service.

In his appeal, the applicant provided an extract from a DVA rating, dated 1 Oct 01, for 100% due to major depressive disorder with generalized anxiety disorder.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant provided his rationale for recommending denial.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPD provided their rationale for recommending denial.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 6 Sep 02 for review and comment within 30 days.  

Pursuant to an inquiry by the AFBCMR Staff regarding a missing Attachment #11 to his original application, the applicant forwarded a 26 Apr 02 evaluation and indicated this should be used as Attachment #11. In the evaluation, the civilian physician alleged that, despite warnings of allergic reactions, the Air Force doctors injected the applicant with a potentially dangerous dose of tetanus/diphtheria booster to which he immediately reacted and that he received no discharge exam [See Statement of Facts]. Further, the statement claims the applicant’s allergic reaction to the tetanus test was not EPTS and was the beginning of his disability which was so aggravated that it created a secondary mental condition for which he has been awarded 100% disability.

The applicant subsequently submitted an additional rebuttal and attachments. His major argument against the MEB Findings and Recommendations is that they grouped together two very different bodies of test result information and mistakenly reported them as one.  This gave the impression that it was asthma and allergy conditions that were reactivated, which wasn’t the case at all. He claims the administering allergist didn’t have any proof of his stated sensitivity to tetanus toxoid and gave him an injection of it. The applicant asserts the allergist’s notes in the records reflect he had a “marked sensitivity” to the injection given. [See Statement of Facts and Exhibit A for the actual wording of the medical entry.]  He claims the severe adverse effects of this shot as the physical cause and starting point of his service-connected mental degeneration. He was mentally incapacitated as a result of toxic poisoning from the injection. His tests for allergic rhinitis and asthma showed nothing significant that would prevent the performance of duty. He alleges he was tested with tetanus toxoid, a medication known to be poisonous to him, and suffered immediate severe adverse side effects that left him with a life-long disability. The tetanus toxoid shot had nothing to do with allergic rhinitis, asthma or seasonal allergies, but somehow the reaction he had to it was classified with allergic rhinitis testing and was then used as the basis for having EPTS allergic rhinitis and asthma.

Included is another statement from a civilian doctor at a holistic resource center. The doctor claims the applicant received an inappropriate tetanus toxoid booster immunization shortly after entering military service in 1968. This resulted in an immediate reaction of facial swelling, urticaria and difficulty breathing and caused his health to deteriorate with depression, hallucinations, delusions and physical malaise. Since the applicant had been given a tetanus booster 13 months earlier, there was no indication for another booster for at least 10 years. He believes the Air Force doctors were guilty of malpractice.

Complete copies of the applicant’s submissions, with attachments, are at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his separation for an EPTS condition should be changed to a medical retirement. The records indicate the applicant advised he had an allergic reaction when he received a tetanus preparation at a hospital emergency room 13 months before he enlisted. Further, the available records, the type of skin tests performed on 15 Nov 68, and the applicant’s submission do not support his claim that he was administered a tetanus injection after he enlisted. The skin tests administered on 15 Nov 68 and to which the applicant displayed “marked sensitivities” appear not to have included a tetanus injection. The available records do not show that the applicant was given a tetanus injection, had a significant reaction to a tetanus/diphtheria injection, or was treated or hospitalized for a tetanus reaction while in the military.  The MEB physician indicated the applicant had not experienced a significant illness or injury since induction. Therefore, we fail to see how the Air Force is culpable for the applicant’s present medical situation. The applicant appears to have been appropriately discharged for concealing his allergic rhinitis and asthma, both EPTS and not compensable.  In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

4.	The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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 19 December 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-01388 was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Apr 02, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 12 Jul 02.
  Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 29 Aug 02.
  Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Sep 02.
  Exhibit F.  Letters, Applicant, dated 19 Sep 02, w/atch, and 
                       undated (received 4 Oct 02), w/atchs.