RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2001-02693
					   (Case 2)
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The authority and reason for his Air National Guard (ANG) separation be revoked.  In addition, that his “Ineligible” reenlistment eligibility rating be changed.

Should his record be corrected, he be reinstated to the ANG, with no break in service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He may have been misdiagnosed as having a seizure disorder.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and copies of medical statements.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Air National Guard (ANG) in the grade of airman basic (E-1) on 21 Nov 86 for a period of six years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), with an effective date and date of rank of 17 Jun 91.  He continued to reenlist in the ANG, with his last reenlistment on 20 Nov 97.

On 1 Feb 01, the applicant was relieved from his assignment and honorably discharged from the New Mexico ANG  and as a Reserve of the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3209 (Medical Disqualification for Worldwide Duty).  He had completed a total of 14 years, 3 months and 25 days of service for pay and was serving in the grade of E-5 at the time of discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPFP recommends the application be denied.  DPFP stated that, after being diagnosed with a seizure disorder, the applicant was discharged from the New Mexico Air National Guard on 1 Feb 01.  The applicant’s case was presented before a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and a decision was rendered.  The applicant did not respond nor challenge the evaluation board’s decision.  DPFP indicated that there is insufficient medical documentation supporting an incorrect discharge.  If pursuing reinstatement, specific information/evaluations are required.  Upon receipt of the additional documentation and if it is then determined a misdiagnosis occurred, the state could request a new MEB.  If the applicant is found fit for duty at this time and the unit in question supports the decision, it is possible the applicant would be allowed to rejoin the ANG; however, the break in service would remain.  The ANG/DPFP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 31 May 02 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the AFBCMR Medical Consultant provided the following advisory opinion.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied.  The AFBCMR Medical Consultant stated that the applicant served on extended active duty during the Persian Gulf War from 29 Dec 90 to 15 Apr 91, including service in the Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm from 12 Jan 91 to 12 Mar 91.  He was administratively separated 1 Feb 01 due to medical disqualification for continued service in the ANG (12 years, 10 months and 28 days in the ANG, with 1 year, 4 months and 28 days on active duty).  Review of service medical records and Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) medical records and rating decision documents indicate a history of recurrent blackouts and seizure like episodes since 1994 and a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) since 1995 that ultimately led to medical disqualification and discharge from the ANG.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant indicates that, in Mar 94, the applicant was evaluated for possible seizure disorder after an episode of loss of consciousness resulting in a motor vehicle accident and closed head injury while driving across country.  On 4 Jun 94, he reported that every six weeks he experienced blackouts and memory lapses lasting four hours since his motor vehicle accident and reported that the neurologists at the VA suspected temporal lobe seizures.  However, in a Nov 94 opinion, after extensive neurology evaluation, a neurologist concluded that it was not likely that the applicant had a seizure disorder.  During the applicant’s 9 Jun 95 evaluation at a DVA Post Traumatic Syndrome Disorder (PTSD) Clinic, he reported that he had served as an aerial gunner during the Persian Gulf War on a rescue helicopter and was exposed to combat suffering surface fragment wounds to the chest and legs.  Since the Gulf War, he had difficulties with irritability and other symptoms.  He reported that he had been evaluated by VA mental health in 94 and told he was healthy.  He worked as a security guard until he was laid off.  The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, with mild to moderate impairment.  The AFBCMR Medical Consultant indicated that apparently no report of this diagnosis was made known to his ANG unit and he continued to serve in the ANG.  In Sep 99, the applicant reported having had a seizure to his unit and was evaluated on 8 Sep 99 for generalized tonic-clonic seizure and placed on an anti-seizure medication.  He was evaluated and treated for his seizure episodes through the VA and extensive evaluation with the VA’s neurology department is evident in the record.  Because of his report of seizures, the applicant was temporarily medically disqualified in Sep 99 for duty with the ANG.  He met a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) on 6 May 00.  The MEB recommended medical disqualification for generalized tonic-clonic seizure and possible PTSD.  Based on this information, the ANG medically disqualified the applicant and discharged him, effective 1 Feb 01.

In Feb 01, the applicant’s mental health providers and neurologists were reaching the conclusion that the applicant’s seizures were actually pseudo-seizures related to either his PTSD or Conversion Disorder that were still occurring approximately twice per year.  An 18 Apr 01 memorandum from the VA PTSD/Trauma Clinic provides the opinion that the applicant was misdiagnosed with seizure and felt that his physical symptoms were based on a motor vehicle accident, psychological symptoms and nighttime manifestations of his Gulf War combat exposure.  A 22 Aug 01 VA clinic entry lists the diagnoses as PTSD, probably childhood related, sub-threshold, stable, no nightmares, flashbacks or panic attacks.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant indicates that the DVA Rating Decisions, dated 28 Aug 97, 25 Apr 00 and 14 Feb 02, deny the applicant’s claim for service connection for shell fragment wounds, PTSD and seizure disorder.  The VA based its denial of service connection in the fact that there was no evidence to support the applicant’s claim of combat involvement.

Regardless of whether the actual cause of the seizure activity was a true seizure disorder or due to PTSD or Conversion Disorder, the AFBCMR Medical Consultant states that the applicant was not medically qualified for continued duty in the ANG.  There was no impropriety or inequity in his medical evaluation board and discharge for medical disqualification.  Evidence in the VA records indicates ongoing difficulties into 2001 with some improvement so as to not require ongoing therapy and the ability to pursue employment.  The applicant’s PTSD was felt by his VA mental health providers to have its foundation in childhood traumas aggravated by traumatic experiences reported during the Gulf War (unsubstantiated by the record resulting in denial of service connection claim with the VA).  Although he may have improved after several years of symptoms (including pseudo-seizure), the applicant is at an increased risk of recurrent symptoms when again exposed to traumatic events, including military combat.  The applicant’s medical disqualification and discharge was proper and his history of PTSD, with pseudo-seizures, is disqualifying for reentry into the service.  Action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.  The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 7 Mar 03 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit F).
_________________________________________________________________

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 opinion and recommendation of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  In this respect, no evidence has been presented to reflect the applicant was not treated fairly and properly and that all procedures were not followed when he met a Medical Evaluation Board and subsequently discharged.  While it appears there has been some disagreement concerning the appropriate diagnosis for the applicant’s condition, according to the AFBCMR Medical Consultant, seizure disorders, PTSD and Conversion Disorders are disqualifying for continued service.  The applicant has not provided evidence showing the contrary is the case.  Notwithstanding the above, we note that ANG/DPFP provided the applicant with additional information should he desire to proceed administratively through the ANG with his appeal for reinstatement.  Should the applicant pursue this avenue and is found fit for duty at that time, the Board may then be willing to reconsider his request.  In view of the above and absent 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 this application in Executive Session on 18 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	            Chair
	            Member
	            Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2001-02693.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Sep 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, ANG/DPFP, dated 14 May 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 May 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 27 Feb 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 7 Mar 03.