RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01216
				INDEX CODE:  115.02
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  17 February 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated to active duty in the grade of senior airman, awarded all back pay and allowances, and credited with active duty time since his discharge.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was unfairly discharged from the Air Force due to an unfair Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and an inaccurate medical evaluation report.  

In support of his appeal, the applicant includes a personal statement, documentation pertaining to the evaluation and disposition of his medical condition, and two letters of support.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 3 June 1999, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 18 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of six years.  He was trained as a Security Forces Journeyman.  The applicant was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4) effective and with a date of rank of 16 March 2002.  He received three performance evaluations between the period of 3 June 1999 and 2 February 2003, with promotion recommendations of 3, 5, and 4.

On 17 May 2001, the applicant underwent surgery to remove his colon (large intestine) due to a diagnosis of Familial Adenomatous Polyposis syndrome, a genetic syndrome with essentially a 100 percent risk for the development for colon cancer.  On 25 September 2001, the requirement for the applicant to use Lomotil, a narcotic anti-diarrhea agent, resulted in his permanent decertification from the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) and prevented him from being able to carry a weapon.  According to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) narrative summary, dated 28 December 2002, the applicant was able to control his bowels with diet alone by July 2002.  In September 2002, he deployed with his unit, but experienced recurrent diarrhea in the deployment location requiring the use of Lomotil.  The applicant was returned back to his home base because he could not be utilized as a security forces member.  This incident triggered the initiation of an MEB.  Air Force Instruction 48-123, paragraph A2.9.15, dictates a mandatory MEB on any person diagnosed with Familial Polyposis.

On 6 January 2003, the MEB diagnosed the applicant with Familial Polyposis/Chronic Diarrhea and found his condition was incurred while entitled to basic pay, did not exist prior to service, and was not permanently aggravated by service.  The MEB referred the applicant’s case to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board.  On 9 January 2003, his commander submitted a memorandum to the Air Force Medical Standards Branch, supporting the applicant’s retention in service and cross-training him into a career field that has a limited or no deployment commitment.  

On 3 February 2003, the IPEB diagnosed the applicant with Familial Polyposis associated with chronic diarrhea status post partial colectomy, and found his condition existed prior to service (EPTS) without service aggravation.  The IPEB noted the applicant’s condition is familial/genetic, even though it did not manifest prior to service.  The IPEB found the applicant unfit because of physical disability and recommended discharge under provisions other than Chapter 61, Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.).  On 4 February 2003, the applicant submitted his disagreement with the IPEB’s findings and demanded a formal hearing of his case.  

On 21 March 2003, the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) found the testimony and medical evidence supported the findings of the IPEB and agreed with the IPEB’s recommendation for discharge.  The FPEB stated the applicant’s condition was incompatible with the long term rigors of the military service and stated they could not ascertain any permanent service aggravation.  On 21 March 2003, the applicant submitted his disagreement with the FPEB findings and recommendations and expressed his desire to submit an appeal.  On 1 April 2003, the applicant submitted a letter reversing his decision to appeal and stated it was in his best interest to accept the FPEB’s decision.  

On 7 April 2003, officials within the office of the Secretary of the Air Force determined the applicant was physically unfit for continued military service due to a physical disability which existed prior to military service and directed discharge without disability benefits.  

The applicant was honorably discharged effective 23 May 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 with a reentry code 2Q (personnel medically retired or discharged) and a separation code of JFM (disability, existed prior to service).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the applicant’s records is warranted.  The BCMR Medical Consultant states the fact the applicant’s bowels are currently controlled with diet and a stable work environment does not indicate that his condition is different than previously or from others without a colon in whom diarrhea will occur when exposed to the demands of military service including deployments requiring changing work schedules, inconsistent diets, or harsh climates requiring marked changes in fluid intake.  The preponderance of the evidence shows the applicant’s condition was incompatible with continued military service in his Air Force specialty or for a long term career in other career fields, the majority of which are also subject to deployments.  It is the BCMR Medical Consultant’s opinion that the applicant’s case was properly evaluated and received full consideration under the provisions of AFI 36-3212, the finding of unfit was consistent with policy and practice, and no error or injustice occurred in this case.  The BCMR Medical Consultant states that action and disposition in this case are proper and reflect compliance with Air Force directives which implement the law.  The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6 June 2005 for review and response 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.  We note the applicant’s assertion that he was unfairly discharged due to an unfair PEB and inaccurate medical evaluation report; however, according to the Air Force office of primary responsibility, his medical condition was disqualifying for military duty then, as it is now.  Neither does the record reveal nor has the applicant provided any evidence that would lead us to believe that he was physically fit within the meaning of the governing regulation, which implements the law, to return him to active service.  We note that the Service Secretaries are charged with maintaining a fit and vital force.  Medical standards ensuring accession of healthy members with a low risk for medical problems that may interfere with performance of military duties have been developed over time based on decades of experience and are appropriately updated.  Based on the above comments, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office 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.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request is not favorably considered.

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 issues 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 10 August 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01216:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jun 04, with attachments.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 2 Jun 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Jun 05.