RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03090
		INDEX CODE:  108.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect a service-connected disability.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes that his records should be coded to indicate that he has a Gulf War disability.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and documentation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 Jan 76 in the grade of airman basic for a period of six years.  He was released from active duty on 6 Jun 80 and transferred to the Air Force Reserve.  He was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve on 20 Jan 82.  He reenlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 Dec 82 in the grade of sergeant.  

On 30 Jun 00, the applicant was relieved from active duty and retired for length of service, effective 1 Jul 00, in the grade of master sergeant.  He was credited with 21 years, 6 months, and 14 days of active duty.

Applicant’s Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) profile since 1990 follows:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION

	 9 Oct 90		5
	 9 Oct 91		5
	 2 Aug 92		5
	19 Oct 93		5
	19 Oct 94		5
	19 Oct 95		5
	 2 May 96		5
	 2 May 97		5
	29 Apr 98		5
	29 Apr 99		5

A Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Rating Decision, dated 21 Aug 01, indicates that the applicant was granted service-connected disability compensation for generalized anxiety disorder (30 percent), temporomandibular joint dysfunction (10 percent), acne rosacea (10 percent), conjunctivitis (10 percent), gastroesophageal reflux disease (10 percent), and a neck condition (10 percent), effective 1 Ju1 00, for a total combined disability compensation rating of 60 percent.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Medical Consultant recommended denial indicating that a review of the service medical records found evidence of a variety of medical problems, none of which interfered with the applicant’s duty performance.  The applicant has acne rosacea, and entries in the record documented abnormal facial erythema and telangectasia consistent with the onset of this disorder.  Acne rosacea is a disorder of the skin with onset in many affected individuals by age 30, characterized by redness and dilation of blood vessels (telangectasia, redness and flushing) typically affecting the face (especially the nose, cheek, forehead and eyelids).  Ingestion of alcohol often precipitates a flare of the disease and worsens the flushing.  Some patients develop severe sebaceous gland (oil glands in the skin) growth accompanied by inflammation producing papules, pustules (acne like), cysts and nodules.  In addition to the skin manifestations, the applicant also experiences the recurrent conjunctivitis associated with acne rosacea.  The onset of his skin disorder predated his deployment to the Gulf region and did not interfere with the performance of duty.

The Medical Consultant noted that on a health assessment questionnaire, dated 18 Oct 99, the applicant reported problems with anxiety and family problems.  On a health assessment questionnaire, dated 7 Oct 99, the applicant denied problems with anxiety or family problems.  There were no other medical record entries where the applicant mentioned problems with anxiety or sought care for this symptom.  In his final year of service, he was evaluated for a benign enlargement of breast tissue called gynecomastia, high cholesterol, acne rosacea of several years duration, recurrent conjunctivitis related to his acne rosacea also of several years duration.  The applicant received care in the dental clinic for periodontal disease.  No mention of temporomandibular joint or jaw pain is mentioned.  A single visit for symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux is found in Oct 99. The applicant was treated for a stiff neck in Apr 98 with a course of physical therapy.  No further neck complaints are noted in the record.  The retirement medical examination, dated 18 May 00, documented his history of gynecomastia, hemorrhoids, right arm pain when overextended (for several years), acne rosacea and associated conjunctivitis, periodontal problems, a remote history of Bells Palsy, hyperlipidemia, chronic bronchitis related to smoking (“emphysema,” however pulmonary function tests were normal), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).  There was no mention of anxiety, temporomandibular joint problems, or neck problems.  No unfitting medical condition was identified at the time of his retirement physical examination that would have precluded continued service on active duty.

The Medical Consultant indicated that while his review of the service medical records found numerous medical conditions, none of which were unfitting for continued service or warranted evaluation in the Air Force Disability Evaluation System (DES).  He noted that following his separation from the Air Force, the applicant was diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder in association with numerous stressors including adjusting to civilian life, family problems, acne rosacea, and increased alcohol intake (which also aggravates acne rosacea).  There was a single report in the service medical records indicating he experienced anxiety, but no evidence that this symptom was of a severity to interfere with duty as further evidenced by the fact that he did not report this symptom on his retirement medical examination.  The applicant has acne rosacea, the onset of which predated his deployment to the Gulf region and is aggravated by alcohol use.  There was no evidence that his health problems were related to duty in the Gulf region.  The DVA has evaluated the applicant and provided disability compensation for his service-connected conditions that are documented in the service medical records.

According to the Medical Consultant, the action and disposition in this case were proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives which implement the law.  In his view, no change in the records is warranted.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD recommended denial indicating that a review of the applicant’s records revealed that he was never referred through the Air Force DES under the provisions of AFI 36-3212.  The purpose of the DES is to maintain a fit and vital force by separating or retiring members who are unable to perform the duties of their office, grade, rank or rating.  Those members who are separated or retired by reason of a physical disability may be eligible for certain compensation. The decision to process a member through the military DES is determined by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) when he or she is determined medically disqualified for continued military service.  The decision to conduct an MEB is made by the medical treatment facility providing health care to the member.

According to AFPC/DPPD, the applicant’s request to change the separation code (Item 26) on his DD Form 214 is inappropriate.  The DD Form 214 is only utilized to document military personnel data for the period of service indicated on the form (Item 12).  It is not utilized to document medical information, which is the purpose of the service medical records.  The separation code “RBD” on the veteran’s DD Form 214 indicates a voluntary retirement for sufficient years of service and is correct as stated.

AFPC/DPPD stated that although the applicant’s records indicated he was treated for various medical conditions throughout his military career, none of these conditions show he was incapable of performing the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating while on active duty.  The individual’s medical retirement examination, coupled with his most recent performance reports, clearly indicated he was reasonably capable of performing the duties required of his Civil Engineering career field right up until the time of his approved military retirement.  His medical records clearly reflected that his career was not curtailed or shortened due to any serious or unfitting medical conditions that may have been received as a result of his tour to the Gulf War.  An individual’s ability to perform his or her military duties is one of the primary criteria in determining an individual’s fitness for continued duty during the DES process.

Due to the applicant’s reference to his DVA records, AFPC/DPPD assumed that he desires to have his current retirement for years of service changed to a disability retirement under military disability laws and policy.  In their view, it is essential that the applicant understand the difference between the Air Force and DVA disability systems.  Under the Air Force system, Physical Evaluation Boards (PEBs) must determine if an individual’s medical condition renders them unfit for duty.  The fact that a person may have a medical condition does not automatically mean the condition is unfitting for continued military service.  To be unfitting, the medical condition must be such that it by itself precludes the person from fulfilling the purpose for which he or she is employed.  If the PEB renders a finding of unfit, federal law provides appropriate compensation due to the premature termination of the member’s career.  USAF disability boards can only rate unfitting medical conditions based upon the individual’s medical status at the time of his or her MEB/PEB, in essence a snapshot of their condition at that time.  The DVA, however, is chartered to provide continual medical care to veterans once they depart active duty.  The DVA may increase or decrease a member’s service-connected disability rating based on the seriousness of the medical condition throughout his or her life span.

In AFPC/DPPD’s view, there is no reason to change the applicant’s DD Form 214 to reflect a different separation code, or that his records be amended to reflect he was awarded a disability retirement.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 21 Mar 03 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case.  However, we did not find it sufficient to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs).  Therefore, in the absence of evidence that, at time of his retirement from active duty, the applicant was unfit to perform the duties of his rank and office, within the meaning of the law, we agree with the recommendations of the OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, 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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-03090 in Executive Session on 30 Apr 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member
	
The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Sep 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 11 Feb 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 17 Mar 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Mar 03.