RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02216
		INDEX CODE:  108:00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  20 Jan 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be medically retired with a minimum disability rating of 10 percent.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He contracted a tropical disease that he believes should have entitled him to a medical retirement from the Air Force.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States, an expanded statement, and extracts from his medical records.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 1 Jun 64 for a period of four years in the grade of airman basic (E-1).
His service medical records indicate the applicant was seen in Jan 65 with stinging and burning after urination.  There was a discharge and a history of a contact eight days previously.  Medication was prescribed.  He was seen in Nov 66 after complaining of slight stinging on urination.  There was no discharge noted.  Medication was prescribed.  He was again seen in Jan 68 with penal discharge and the impression was urethritis.  Medication was prescribed and a few days later it was felt that the condition was cured.  He was again seen in Feb 68 for what was referred to as recurrent urethritis.  There was some indication that a gonorrhea smear was positive.  Treatment was prescribed and he was later seen in Mar 68 with swollen node in left groin and two small ulcers at the base of the penal gland.  It was noted he had been on medication for non-specific discharge.  The impression was urethritis.  The applicant’s physical examination at the time of discharge indicated he was presently being treated for possible gonorrhea, but no complications were found and no sequela.

Applicant was honorably released from active duty in the grade of sergeant (E-4) on 31 May 68 under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Expiration Term of Service).  He was credited with four years of active service.

On 3 Jun 68, he was admitted to a Veterans Hospital for 17 days after being diagnosed with lymphogranuloma venereum (a sexually transmitted disease), suspected.  He condition was subsequently considered to be service-connected with a zero percent disability rating.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Medical Consultant recommended denial indicating that a review of the applicant’s service medical records found no medical condition that interfered with performance of his military duties or warranted his referral for evaluation in the Air Force Disability Evaluation System.  The Military Disability Evaluation System, established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law under Title 10, only offer compensation for those disease or injuries which specifically rendered a member unfit for continued active service, were the cause for termination of their career, and then only for the degree of impairment present at the time of separation and not based on future possibilities.  The mere presence of a medical condition does not qualify a member for disability evaluation.  For an individual to be considered unfit for military service, there must be a medical condition that prevents performance of any work commensurate with rank and experience or precludes assignment to military duties.  The applicant's sexually transmitted disease contracted while in service did not render him unfit for duty.

According to the Medical Consultant, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) operates under a separate set of laws (Title 38) and specifically addresses long-term medical care, social support and educational assistance.  The DVA is chartered to offer compensation and care to all eligible veterans for any service-connected disease or injury without regard to whether it was unfitting for continued military service.  Title 38 takes into account the fact that a person can acquire physical conditions that, although not unfitting at the time of separation, may later progress in severity and alter the individual's lifestyle and future employability. With this in mind, Title 38, U.S.C. which governs the DVA compensation system was written to allow awarding compensation ratings for conditions that were not unfitting for military service at the time of separation. The DVA is also empowered to reevaluate veterans periodically for the purpose of changing their disability awards if their level of impairment varies over time. Thus the two systems represent a continuum of medical care and disability compensation that starts with entry on to active duty and continues for the life of the veteran. The presence of medical conditions that were not unfitting while in the service, were not the cause of separation or retirement, and that later progress in severity causing disability resulting in service connected DVA compensation is not an unusual occurrence and is not a basis to retroactively grant military disability discharge or disability compensation.  

The Medical Consultant believes the action and disposition in this case were proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law, and that no change in the records is warranted.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a response indicating the advisory did not refer to the tropical disease he initially contracted.  He was not diagnosed with lymphogranuloma venereum until after his discharge from the Air Force.  He believes his failure to receive a medical board prior to his discharge precluded a determination whether he was fit for continued military service.  If his condition was serious enough to result in his hospitalization upon his separation, then it should have been serious enough for a medical hold.  Apparently, he was not fit for duty if he had to be hospitalized.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

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 do not find it sufficient to override the rationale provided by the Medical Consultant.  No evidence has been presented which shows to our satisfaction the applicant’s medical condition rendered him unfit to perform the duties of his rank and office, within the meaning of the law.  We noted he was hospitalized in a Veterans Hospital for a number of days shortly after his separation from the Air Force.  However, although his condition was considered to be service-connected, he was given a zero percent disability rating.  In view of the foregoing, we agree with the recommendation of the Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-02216 in Executive Session on 26 Jul 05, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Aug 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 16 Jun 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jun 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 25 Jun 05, w/atch.