RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02999

 						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His skin condition of Acne Vulgaris be determined service connected instead of Existed Prior to Service (EPTS).  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He did not have Acne Vulgaris before joining the service or his assignment in Vietnam.  

He requests his January 1976 physical be amended to reflect his skin condition was not EPTS.  He remembers the evaluating physician insisting that he had to have had at least a few pimples growing up.  He told him he did not remember but he kept going on so he told him to have it his way.  It is a fabrication.  

He provides a copy of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rating decision dated 12 March 2012, which states the evidence shows Acne Vulgaris on face and back is an EPTS condition.  The rating decision further states that Service Treatment Records (STR) show that he had Acne Vulgaris on his face and back about eight years prior to service.  The applicant noted that based on the picture he sent this was not true.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 28 April 1970 and was honorably discharged on 27 April 1978.  He was credited with 8 years of active duty service.    

The applicant’s SF 93, Report of Medical Examination, dated    23 January 1978, states “Acne Vulgaris, face and back, treated with tetracycline, intermittently, when problem arises, duration of 12 years.”
 
The applicant’s NGB Form 22, Separation and Record of Service, reflects he was honorably discharged from the Air National Guard on 30 May 1981.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and E.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The applicant may utilize this review in a future appeal to the DVA since the Board has no authority to direct a change in a decision rendered by the DVA.  Noting the applicant’s acne lesions appear to have occurred beyond typical puberty, the conditions could still be considered a naturally occurring process with no association with military service; albeit at least as likely as not first manifesting during military service.  Establishing whether the condition was solely service incurred or permanently aggravated by military service rests with the DVA.  The applicant is advised that under 38 U.S.C., unless his Acne Vulgaris imparts a demonstrable functional impairment (painful or disfiguring scarring) it is unlikely to warrant monetary payment, even if found service connected.

The supplied medical documentation does indicate the applicant experienced acne condition during his military service, documented on 18 September 1971 and on his separation physical on 23 January 1978.  Determining whether it was an EPTS condition at this juncture, 37 years post-discharge, would be based upon conjecture.  If the applicant’s photographs are true representations of himself at the self-reported age, then the Medical Consultant is unable to discern any facial lesions on the technical training photograph provided by the applicant.  While the applicant has characterized certain information in his records as a “lie” the Medical Consultant has no way to validate or invalidate the accuracy of any such statement utilizing the supplied record, under the presumption of regularity.  Additionally, while the Medical Consultant has no scientific proof his Acne Vulgaris was caused by the water reportedly consumed from a water cooler during his tour of duty in Vietnam, when considering the pathophysiology of Acne Vulgaris there may be a close association with the prevailing climate and possible association with resident bacteria inhabiting the skin.  He also experienced other skin entities during his military service.  Although now granted presumptive service connection for diabetes (due to Agent Orange exposure), a condition which also poses a predisposition for co-morbid cutaneous infections, there is no objective evidence that the applicant suffered from clinically proven diabetes during his military service or that diabetes was the cause of his cutaneous infections.  

A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 29 December 2015 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVLUATION:  

AFMOA/SGH does not recommend removing information and altering the applicant’s health history.  Within the medical documents provided, there is only one episode of care with acne as the reason for appointment and this is while the applicant was assigned in Vietnam.  Other entries that note acne are his physical examinations dated 23 January 1978 and 1 December 1980.  There is no indication of ongoing treatment or medication on any other occurrence for acne.  The applicant’s signature is present on the SF 93 dated 23 January 1978 indicating he had acne for duration of 12 years.  

There are several causes that could have been contributing factors to the applicant experiencing symptoms of acne; his age (though typically past the normal age of acne associated to puberty), stress from being in a foreign country, sweating from high humidity and the effects of having been exposed to herbicides known as Agent Orange.  Too much time has lapsed to provide a determination as to whether the symptoms of acne EPTS or were incurred as a predisposition of age, the environment, stressors or chemical exposure.

A complete copy of the AFMOA/SGH evaluation is at Exhibit E.    

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 2 May 2016 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD:

Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  After a careful review of the applicant's contentions, documentation submitted in support of the request, and the available evidence of record, we are not convinced the applicant has provided sufficient evidence for us to conclude that he is the victim of an error or injustice.  We also note the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603.  Therefore, because we do not find it would be in the interest of justice to recommend granting relief, and the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file the application.  Accordingly, we find the application untimely.

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-2015-02999 in Executive Session on 8 September 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
 	 , Member
 	 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 May 2015, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, 
  dated 4 December 2015.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 December 2015.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFMOA/SGH, undated.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 May 2016.