RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00805
		INDEX CODE:  108.07
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  Not Indicated

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His service-connected myalgic myopathy and compressive neuropathies be reclassified as due to peripheral neuropathy due to Agent Orange exposure and that his skin disorders, be assessed as combat related in order to qualify for compensation under the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Act.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of his retirement the Agent Orange program had not been researched or developed as it is now.  He received a letter from the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) stating his abnormality may or may not be related to herbicide exposure.  If the research had been present it may not have been used as a scapegoat.  Agent Orange exposure and peripheral neuropathy would help to explain some of his conditions through the autonomic nervous system.  Peripheral neuropathy is a nervous system condition that causes numbness, tingling, and muscle weakness by involvement of the nerves and now it is mixed with Agent Orange/Dioxin, which is causing his CPK count to be well above normal. 

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, documentation associated with his CRSC application, and documentation extracted from his medical records.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 7 Sep 67.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Oct 82.  He served as an Administrative Technician.  He served in Vietnam from 7 Sep 69 to 3 Jun 70.  He was referred to a Medical Evaluation Board on 11 Dec 86.  He was found fit for continued military service with a recommendation of a waiver for aerobics.  He voluntary retired from the Air Force on 30 Sep 87, having served 20 years and 24 days on active duty.
Current DVA records reflect a combined compensable rating of 100% for his unfitting conditions.  

His CRSC application was disapproved on 9 Feb 04 based upon the fact that his service-connected medical conditions were determined not to be combat-related.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial.  DPPD states his records reflect he was treated for myalgic myopathy of unknown origin affecting his legs, shoulders, and arms.  It is not considered to be related to combat acts, instrumentality of war, due to hazardous service, or presumptive of Agent Orange.  There is no record of any particular injury he encountered, just repetitive trauma from painful swelling of multiple muscles beginning in the left lower extremity and from the spreading to the upper extremities of both arms and shoulders.  He had recurrent pain and cramping of muscles brought on by exertion and based on strength testing the likely component of his fatigue was brought on by physical activity.  The only abnormality noted for Agent Orange was an elevated creatine kinase.  He was denied connection for Agent Orange.  He feels that because his condition was of an unknown origin it was diagnosed incorrectly and instead should be considered as peripheral neuropathy to justify eligibility for CRSC.  There is no documentation that his myalgic myopathy is in direct relation to peripheral neuropathy and the preponderance of evidence does not justify the change in his medical records.  The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that his records show he was treated for both myalgic myopathy of unknown origin and peripheral neuropathy.  His peripheral neuropathy was over shadowed by the myalgic myopathy.  The letter he received from the DVA in 1987 identifies an abnormality in his creatine kinase and elevated cholesterol levels and denies him connection for Agent Orange.  The letter also indicated that there is considerable research in progress and no conclusion on scientific evidence was available.  In 1994, he received a brief from the DVA stating that his peripheral neuropathy was added to the list of conditions related to Agent Orange.  Given the definition of peripheral neuropathy, his medical records show that from 1971 until the present he has displayed the symptoms.  The Agent Orange brief of 2003 contains a collection of skin problem (chloracne) as presumptive.  This too is something he has been treated for since 1971.  His complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.  

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The Medical Consultant states he was diagnosed in 1986 with an unclassified myopathy manifested by muscle cramping, pain, and weakness.  Extensive neurologic evaluation demonstrated his condition was a primary disease of muscle and not due to peripheral neuropathy.  Subsequent evaluations have concluded he has a metabolic myopathy, a disease of muscle, not of nerves.  Neurologic evaluations have documented mechanical compression of the nerves of the wrist (carpal tunnel syndrome) and the neck (radiculopathy) and not peripheral neuropathy.  This is not a toxic peripheral neuropathy such as may be seen with dioxin or other toxin exposure.  He submits a DVA neurology medical record dated over 30 years since his tour of duty in Vietnam that lists peripheral neuropathy as a provisional diagnosis.  An electromyogram performed in 2002 confirmed his previous diagnosis of a compressive neuropathy at the wrist and did not diagnose a peripheral neuropathy.  He is not currently rated or being compensated by the DVA for peripheral neuropathy.  His service and DVA medical records contain entries for various skin diseases, none of which are related to chloracne.  He has been granted DVA compensation for Athletes foot and condyloma (skin infection), both are rated at 0%.

The Medical Consultant Evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 14 Jan 05 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review of the available evidence of record, we are not persuaded that a change to the applicant's records is warranted.  His contentions are duly noted; however we do not find his assertions sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  Further, is our opinion that the service-connected medical conditions the applicant believes are combat-related were not incurred as the direct result of armed conflict, while engaged in hazardous service, in the performance of duty under conditions simulating war, or through an instrumentality of war, and therefore, do not qualify for compensation under the CRSC Act.  Accordingly, 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.  In the absence of 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 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-2004-00805 in Executive Session on 6 Apr 05, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Feb 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 7 May 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 May 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Jun 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 13 Jan 05.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 14 Jan 05.