ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02681A
		INDEX CODE:  137.00
		COUNSEL:  None

		HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests his military records be corrected to reflect he made a timely election for spouse coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant prior to his 1 August 1968 retirement was married and elected spouse coverage under the Retired Serviceman’s Family Protection Plan (RSFPP).

Public Law (PL) 92-425 established the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) on 21 September 1972.  The applicant did not elect to participate in SBP during the authorized open enrollment periods for 1972-1974, 1981-1982, 1992-1993 and 1999-2000.

A similar appeal was considered and denied by the Board on 2 and 8 December 2004.  For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's request to have his military records corrected to reflect he made a timely election for spouse coverage under the SBP, and, the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F.

The applicant’s sister, acting on his behalf, resubmitted a letter dated 2 December 2004, requesting reconsideration of the applicant’s application with documentation indicating the applicant has a history of chronic medical problems (Exhibit G).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, reviewed the applicant’s request for reconsideration and states the available medical documentation shows the applicant had numerous chronic medical problems including heart disease, lung disease and a history of normal pressure hydrocephalus and mild dementia.  The applicant was referred from Japan to Tripler Army Medical Center for consultation with neurosurgery regarding whether his cervical spine arthritis warranted surgery.  The medical documentation further showed the applicant has a history of coronary artery bypass surgery, abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery in July 1998, and pituitary macroadenoma resection in 1993 complicated by hydrocephalus necessitating placement of a ventrculoperitoneal shunt in 1993.  On 6 April 2000, a neurology consultation concluded the applicant had “well compensated” normal pressure hydrocephalus and that on examination he was alert and oriented, that there was no apparent cognitive defect and that his gait was normal.  The applicant was scored 26 out of a maximum of 30 points on a mini-mental examination.  The test was repeated a few days later and the applicant scored 27.  Generally a score of less than 24 is suggestive of dementia, however mild dementia may still be present with this score.  The neurology clinical note listed “mild dementia” as a diagnosis.  Scanning determined the applicant’s shunt was functioning properly.  The applicant was readmitted to the hospital a day after he was discharged due to his being disoriented and almost passing out, which was attributed to low blood pressure, a problem he experienced before (Orthostatic hypotension).  Medical documents further indicated he had been noncompliant with medications and that he did well once readmitted.  Records further showed he was briefly hospitalized in May 2000 for a near syncopal episode attributed to orthostatic hypotension and possible heart rhythm disturbance (tachycardia).  Normal pressure hydrocephalus is a condition of build up of cerebrospinal fluid manifesting as cognitive disturbance, gait disturbance and urinary incontinence.  

Normal pressure hydrocephalus is treated with placement of a shunt to drain the excess fluid reversing the symptoms.  The applicant’s hydrocephalus has been present since 1993 and was properly treated with the placement of a shunt.  The neurologic evaluation of April 2000 documented “no cognitive defect,” never the less it is likely that the applicant experienced some symptoms of mild dementia such as short term memory disturbance.  However, the fact that he reports he submitted applications in May 2000 suggests he had the mental capacity to understand the SBP program and complete the necessary paperwork.  The applicant underwent major cardiac and vascular surgery in July 1998.  The 
medical documentation does not reflect any major medical events during 1999 that would have prevented him from enrolling in SBP during the authorized open enrollment period.  The Medical Consultant further states the evidence of record does not show by a preponderance of evidence that the applicant suffered from medical conditions that impaired his ability to enroll in SBP.  Therefore, he recommends the requested relief be denied.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 13 April 2004, the Board staff forwarded the applicant a copy of the advisory opinion for review and response.  As of this date a response had not been received by this office (Exhibit I).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After careful consideration of the applicant’s reconsideration request and the documentation submitted in support of his appeal, we are not persuaded to override the Board's original decision.  Although the applicant’s medical records reflect he had numerous chronic medical problems, there is insufficient evidence that any of these conditions prevented him from making a valid election for spouse coverage under the SBP during the authorized open enrollment periods.  The applicant presents no explanation why he submitted the open enrollments forms nearly two years after the end of the open period authorized by Public Law 105-261.  Therefore, in view of the foregoing, 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-02681 in Executive Session on 7 June 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit F.  Record of Proceedings, dated 9 Dec 04, w/atchs.
	Exhibit G.  Applicant’s Reconsideration Request, dated 
				 2 Dec 04, w/atchs.
	Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 
				 28 Mar 05
	Exhibit J.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Apr 05.