RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02737
		INDEX NUMBER:  115.00
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be returned to flight status with all flight pay and navigator bonuses effective 12 Dec 01.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The aeromedical summary prepared by his flight surgeon requesting he be permanently grounded is inaccurate and false.  The applicant provides several excerpts from the summary along with attachments he claims prove them to be inaccurate and false.  The applicant’s comments are summarized below:

	  A.  The applicant denies he said he was addicted to pain medication and said instead that he had been treated for a chronic relapsing case of herpes zoster and his body had become narcotic tolerant, which is not defined as drug abuse.

	  B.  He denies his flight surgeon at McGuire AFB stopped prescribing him narcotics because he suspected he was addicted to painkillers and, in fact, continued to prescribe him percocet and increased the frequency.  He did not go to civilian doctors in an attempt to continue receiving narcotics, but was referred because the flight surgeons could not control his recurring herpes zoster.

	  C.  When he changed assignments in Jun 2000, his condition continued and the flight surgeons at this base continued to prescribe him pain medication.  He denies the flight surgeons referred him to aerospace psychology and base legal because they were suspicious of his drug use.  Applicant references an attached e-mail that supports the fact he was returned to flying status initially on 12 Mar 01 and removed again on 3 Apr 01, but advised if he took his medication as prescribed, he would be returned to flying status.

	  D.  He denies he stated to an aerospace psychiatrist he altered a prescription, rather that it was alleged he had done this and it was under investigation.  He references a court order, which shows the charges against him were dropped on 5 Dec 02 and his records ordered expunged.  If the flight surgeon had waited to write the summary, he does not believe he would have been grounded.

	  E.  Applicant references a letter from the Department of Pharmacy at Virginia Commonwealth University he contends refutes the aerospace summary.

Applicant further discusses the aerospace summary and asks a series of hypothetical “what-if” questions, which he asserts the answers will show he did not abuse drugs and should not have been grounded.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on active duty in the grade of major.  In 1997 while serving as a navigator, the applicant developed a medical condition, which resulted in his flight surgeon, in Apr 98, requesting a waiver for the applicant to take antiviral medication.  On 12 Dec 01, the applicant was disqualified from flying by the Air Combat Command Surgeon due to a diagnosis of narcotic abuse based on an aeromedical summary prepared by his attending flight surgeon at the time.

Additional facts pertinent to this case are contained in the additional Air Force evaluation prepared by the BCMR Medical Consultant found at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ USAF/XOOT determined the applicant’s application should be forwarded to AFMSA/SGPA for review of the applicant’s request.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFMSA/SGPA states the applicant’s use of legally prescribed drugs is factual and that narcotic usage while flying poses a significant safety of flight issue due to the potential for mental impairment from medication side effects.  Although the applicant mentions rehabilitation in Aug 01, his package lacks sufficient documentation to show his current health status.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

SAF/MRBR forwarded the two evaluations above to the applicant on 21 Sep 04.  They advised the applicant the evaluation prepared by AFMSA/SGPA noted the applicant’s package lacked sufficient documentation to show his current health status.  The applicant’s case was closed and he was advised to furnish current medical history to AFMSA/SGPA for their determination on his case.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the two evaluations and the letter from SAF/MRBR.  The applicant stated his response provides sufficient documentation with corroborating evidence showing what his health status was on 12 Dec 01.  The applicant opines this is what should be required to grant his request since the letter used to disqualify him was dated 12 Dec 01.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFMSA/SGPA provided an additional evaluation in response to the applicant’s prior response.  They recommend denial of the applicant’s request.  Records reveal on 12 Dec 01 the applicant was medically disqualified by ACC/SG as requested by his flight surgeon.  The flight surgeon’s decision was based on his perception the applicant crossed the line between addiction and true abuse.  They note whether it was drug use or abuse, the decision to disqualify the applicant was appropriate.  Previously, from Nov 97 through Mar 01, the applicant was recurrently placed on Duties Not to Include Flying (DNIF) status (17 occasions for a total of 597 days).  During this same period, the applicant received significant quantities of narcotic medications, antidepressants used in pain management and other medications not waived for flying status.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit G.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the BCMR Medical Consultant provided an evaluation of the applicant’s appeal.  He too recommends denial of the applicant’s request.

The applicant was disqualified from flying in Dec 01 four years after onset of recurrent shingles accompanied by pain treated with narcotic analgesics.  Although his disqualification was based primarily on his misuse or abuse of narcotic analgesics, the prolonged and recurrent nature of the condition and treatment with numerous non-waiverable medications resulting in frequent groundings, also fully justified his disqualification from flying duties.  The applicant submits no substantive evidence to support his assertion the 12 Dec 01 aeromedical summary contained numerous inaccuracies that resulted in unjust disqualification from flying status.  The BCMR Medical Consultant further notes that the procedures for disqualifying a member from flying cannot be as a result of arbitrary or capricious actions of a single flight surgeon.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

A copy of the additional evaluation prepared by AFMSA/SGPA was forwarded to the applicant on 29 Oct 04 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.

A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation prepared by the BCMR Medical Consultant was forwarded to the applicant on 30 Nov 04 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________
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 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.  Therefore, 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 Docket Number BC-2004-02737 in Executive Session on 11 January 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Aug 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, HQ USAF/XOOT, dated 7 Sep 04.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFMSA/SGPA, dated 15 Sep 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Sep 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Oct 04.
    Exhibit G.  Memorandum, AFMSA/SGPA, dated 20 Oct 04.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 04.
    Exhibit I.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant,
                dated 29 Nov 04.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Nov 04.