RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00110 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His honorable discharge status be changed to medical retirement, service connected. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was discharged from the hospital and the Air Force without a medical evaluation board (MEB) while he was very ill and unfit for duty. His wife was told she could not visit while he was in the hospital because he was to iii, running a high fever and probably would not recognize her. His medical conditions are a result of him being exposed to Carbon Tetrachloride (CTC), which is a neurotoxin that is more hazardous than Agent Orange. His sudden release from the hospital and Air Force was part of a cover up by the doctors and the government who knew he was suffering from exposure to CTC and failed to properly treat and diagnose his condition. A fellow service member who served in Japan with him was exposed to CTC and suffered similar medical conditions as him. The Occupational Exposure to Carbon Tetrachloride published in 1975 documents the effects CTC exposure in humans. His medical documents for the period in question are mysteriously missing from his military personnel record. The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) has recently acknowledged that his neuropathy was caused by exposure to CTC while he was in the Air Force and that it was probably the cause for most of his other medical problems. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 12 Jan 53, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the Regular Air Force. The morning report dated 9 Aug 57 reflects the applicant admitted to the hospital on 3 Aug 57. The morning report dated 14 Aug 57 reflects the applicant was released from the hospital on 12 Aug 57. On 26 Aug 57, the applicant was honorably discharged, and transferred to the Air Force Reserve on 27 Aug 57. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant believes his medical condition was not properly diagnosed or treated due to a cover-up by government officials who had knowledge that he was suffering from toxic exposure to CTC. The discharge of an ill patient from a hospital without the completion of care and stabilization or without transferring the individual to another health care provider or institution would be unacceptable and would violate the standard of care and current law. The applicant provided statements from two former service members, one who worked with him and was experiencing similar health issues as him; and the other who he encountered during his discharge process and was shocked at the applicant’s appearance due to his illness. The Medical Consultant did not find these statements alone sufficient to declare the applicant should be medically retired. There were no treatment records or hospital summaries provided covering the period in question. Nor, were there any profile restrictions imposed that would preclude worldwide qualification or trigger a MEB. While the applicant alleges he was either unaware or too ill to know that he had an illness, or was too ill to know that he should have sought immediate medical treatment after his discharge, there was no medical evidence provided for the 12 to 24-month period after his discharge that could corroborate the possible existence of a continuing or residual illness that may have warranted a medical hold for further treatment versus initiating an MEB and placement on the Temporary Disability Retired List or Permanent Retirement. Even more difficult is the ability to quantify the applicant's impairment for disability rating purposes and to determine if he would have collectively reached the rating threshold necessary for a medical retirement. However, due to the length of time since the applicant's discharge, the Medical Consultant finds it virtually impossible to now create medical documentation that meets the objective requirements for an MEB and retroactive retirement action by a Physical Evaluation Board; notwithstanding the recent medical opinion disclosed by a DVA examiner who opined that exposure to CTC could be a contributor in the development the applicant's peripheral neuropathy. This disclosure could be helpful in establishing a nexus with military service; but does not automatically warrant a retroactive unfit determination for this particular medical condition by the Military Department at the "snap shot" time of the applicant's military service. The DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition determined service incurred or aggravated, without regard to its proven impact upon a service member's fitness to serve, narrative reason for separation, or the intervening or transpired time period since the date of separation. This is the reason why an individual can be found fit for release from military service and yet sometime thereafter receive a compensation rating for one or more medical conditions from the DVA that were service connected, but were not proven militarily unfitting at the time of release from service. The DVA is also empowered to conduct periodic re-evaluations for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating awards as the level of impairment from a given service connected medical condition may improve or worsen over the lifetime of the veteran. In conclusion, the Medical Consultant finds no reason to discredit the statements made on the applicant's behalf; particularly since there is evidence of his assignment history and training that indicate possible exposures to various solvents; but opines, absent adequate medical documentation, the applicant has not met the burden of proof to warrant the desired change of the record. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant refutes virtually every point made by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and states that the basis for the request to change his discharge status is a legal issue and not a medical one. His hasty release from the hospital and Air Force was in violation of the rules and regulation. He should not have been discharged without receiving a determination for fitness. How could he be too ill to receive visitors one day but well enough to be discharged the next day and allowed to travel? His evidence substantiates he was exposed to CTC, that his illnesses were caused by that exposure and the medical officials and government were aware of the dangers of being exposed to CTC and elected to ignore it. His medical records for the period in question have mysteriously been eliminated from his records. He had a coworker who served in the same unit during the period in question who suffered from similar illnesses due to CTC exposure. He received an reenlistment code which indicates he was not eligible for immediate reenlistment. How is that possible when the Air Force spent a considerable amount of time trying to convince him to reenlist by encouraging him to apply for Officer Candidate School and a promotion? Was this an issue of him being surplus or that the Air Force knew something was wrong with him and that it pertained to CTC exposure. He has been unable to obtain copies of the rules and regulations for that period from the government to show that his discharge was in violation of Air Force policy. However, under today standards, which he assumes, were similar to the regulations at the time of his separation, indicates he should not have been discharged if he was unfit. While he has no documentation to prove that an MEB was not convened, this can be resolved by the Air Force producing his medical records from his period of hospitalization. He has requested those records for several years and was been told the hospital closed in 1960 and there were no records in existence. He believes this is ridiculous because the Government records everything and discards nothing. It is quite peculiar that all his records have been found except those of his last three weeks in Japan. The Medical Consultant dismisses the validity of the report on CTC exposure as it relates to him because it does not include an elevated fever as a manifestation of toxic exposure to CTC. He did acknowledge he was in good health on questionnaires in Japan, because prior to his exposure he was in good health. He had no idea the cause of his medical conditions were the result of being exposed to CTC. This should have been determined by his doctors. His health remained poor for at least two years after his discharge. While his personal recollection and witness statements are from 50 years ago, he provided 200 pages of supporting documentation had the Medical Consultant actually read the documents he would have reached a different conclusion. The Medical Consultant notes the military services and the DVA operate under different systems and that he should seek care through the DVA. He is receiving care through the DVA. His relationship with the DVA in no way affects his requesting a change in his discharge status. His request is timely as the date of discovery was 12 May 12. The Board should ignore the Medical Consultant’s recommendation because he misunderstood the nature of his request and did not meet the burden of proof to deny his request. The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: After careful consideration of applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we find the application untimely. Applicant did not file within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603. Applicant has not shown a plausible reason for the delay in filing, and we are not persuaded that the record raises issues of error or injustice which require resolution on the merits. Thus, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to file in a timely manner. With respect to his request for his military personnel records, inasmuch as the Board is not the custodian for such records, it is suggested the applicant contact the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) to request copies of his records. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness. It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00110 in Executive Session on 27 Jan 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00110 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Jan 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 1 Jul 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Aug 14. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Sep 14, w/atch.