RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS



IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  95-01726


            COUNSEL:  None


            HEARING DESIRED:  No

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect that he was not placed on the  Temporary
Disability Retired List (TDRL) and that he was  promoted  to  the  grade  of
master sergeant (E-7).

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The medical diagnosis that placed him on the TDRL  was  incorrect  (when  he
was diagnosed in Jan 93, he was informed that the problem was on  the  upper
part of the bone which carried the load of his  body--On  16 Sep  94,  on  a
routine exam, X-rays indicated the avascular necrosis of the  right  femoral
head was not located on the load carrying portion of the bone.   The  actual
location of the avascular necrosis was on the non-load carrying  portion  of
the  bone  and  there  was  no  danger  of  collapse  or  hip  replacement).
Therefore, he should not have left active duty and he would  not  have  been
denied the opportunity to be considered for promotion  to  master  sergeant.
In addition, the amount of time it took to get the Air Force  Academy  (AFA)
Cadet Clinic to process his paperwork took four months.  Two months of  this
was because the Cadet Clinic refused to do anything and keep track of  where
the paperwork was.

In support of his appeal, the applicant  provided  documentation  associated
with his request.  His complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 6 Apr 93, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB)  convened  and  established  a
diagnosis of avascular necrosis of the right femoral  head  (a  degenerative
condition resulting from an insufficient blood supply to  the  joint  area).
The MEB recommended the case be referred to an Informal Physical  Evaluation
Board (PEB).  The applicant was found unfit and his name was placed  on  the
TDRL on 8 Sep 93 for  physical  disability  subsequent  to  a  diagnosis  of
avascular necrosis of the right hip with  a  30  percent  disability  rating
after 16 years and 2 months on active duty.  He received a periodic  medical
examination in Nov 94, which indicated he was medically qualified to  return
to active duty.  He reentered active duty  on  1 Mar  95  in  the  grade  of
technical sergeant.



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Physical  Disability  Division,  AFMPC/DPMAD,   reviewed   this
application and indicated  that  the  purpose  of  the  military  disability
system is to maintain a fit and vital force by separating  members  who  are
unable to perform the duties of the grade, office, rank  or  rating.   Those
members who are separated or retired by reason of  physical  disability  may
be eligible, if otherwise qualified, for certain  disability  compensations.
Eligibility for disability is established by a MEB  when  that  board  finds
that the member may not be qualified for continued  military  service.   The
decision to conduct an  MEB  is  made  by  the  medical  treatment  facility
providing health care to the member.

DPMAD’s review of the record indicates  that  the  applicant  was  correctly
processed through the disability system due to  a  medical  problem  at  the
time of his medical board that called into question his medical fitness  for
continuation on active duty.  The  medical  tests  (X-rays,  MRI,  and  bone
scan) all indicated that the abnormalities  found  in  the  applicant’s  hip
joint were consistent with the diagnosis of avascular necrosis.   Therefore,
the applicant’s case met a medical board, which recommended referral to  the
PEB.   Because  his  medical  situation  was  not  stable   for   disability
disposition purposes,  the  PEB  recommended  temporary  retirement  with  a
compensable rating of 30 percent.  The applicant  agreed  and  was  retired.
Approximately 16 months after his effective retirement date,  the  applicant
was scheduled for a medical examination at the nearest facility  capable  of
evaluating his condition.  They  notify  the  facility  by  mail  that  they
require  an  examination  during  the  specified  month.   Upon  receipt  of
notification of  the  scheduled  date,  they  notify  the  member  by  mail,
providing them with travel orders to that medical  facility.   Upon  receipt
of the narrative summary from that facility, they forward the  case  to  the
PEB.  If the board determines that the member should  be  removed  from  the
TDRL and is fit to  return  to  active  duty,  they  coordinate  with  three
offices within AFMPC:  (a)  Airman  Promotions--to  determine  the  member’s
DOR; (b) Enlistments/Reenlistments--to determine if the member  is  eligible
to reenlist; and (c) Separations Policy--to  determine  if  the  member  was
otherwise eligible to retire or separate.  Upon  receipt  of  comments  from
those offices, they notify the individual of  the  recommended  findings  of
the PEB as well as the recommendations of the offices cited above.

They further indicate that based upon the applicant’s  effective  retirement
date of Sep 93, he would  have  normally  been  scheduled  for  reevaluation
during Dec 94/Jan 95 (based upon availability  of  appointments  during  the
holidays).  However, at the  time  they  received  the  applicant’s  request
(24 Sep  94),  they  had  already  requested  November   appointments   from
hospitals  performing  TDRL  evaluations.   During   the   next   round   of
appointment requests, they did request an  evaluation  appointment  for  the
applicant, noting that he  wanted  one  in  November  if  available.   Their
internal coordination required when the board  determines  the  member  does
not have a medical condition warranting retention on the TDRL or  any  other
unfit disposition is to administratively verify the member’s eligibility  to
return to active duty.   Their  processing  followed  standard,  established
procedures used in all cases when a member is removed from the  TDRL.   They
handled each and every case expeditiously, yet thoroughly and fairly.   Upon
return to active duty, the applicant retained his original  DOR  (1 Aug  92)
as well as his original pay date  (27 Dec  76)  and  “Total  Active  Federal
Military Service Date (8 Jul 77)” (sic).

The applicant’s case was correctly  processed  and  adjudicated  within  the
disability system and they recommend denial.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

The BCMR Consultant, AFMPC/DPMMMR, reviewed this application  and  indicated
that findings and recommendations of the Informal PEB were sustained at  all
levels of review and approval, with concurrence of  the  applicant  and  are
well supported by the evidence of record.  His case was properly  evaluated,
appropriately rated and received full consideration under the provisions  of
AFR 35-4.  The purpose of TDRL is to determine if  a  medical  condition  is
permanent and to use a reasonable period of time to see how the  patient  is
doing.  The criteria for applying TDRL were met  in  the  applicant’s  case.
Action and disposition in this case are proper and reflect  compliance  with
Air Force  directives  which  implement  the  law.   The  Surgeon  General’s
Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records,  insofar  as  it
applies to the medical record, is warranted and the  application  should  be
denied.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

The Chief, Inquiries/Special Actions Section, AFMPC/DPMAJW1,  also  reviewed
this application and indicated that based on the DPMMMR’s finding  that  the
applicant’s placement on the TDRL was appropriate, he would not be  eligible
for promotion consideration during the time period he was on the TDRL.   The
first time he  will  be  eligible  for  promotion  consideration  to  master
sergeant is cycle 96E7 (promotions effective  Aug  96 -  Jul  97).   He  was
ineligible for promotion consideration for cycle 95E7 because he was not  on
active duty on the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD)  of  31 Dec  94,
as required for this cycle.  While the applicant wanted to  be  returned  to
active duty prior to 1 Jan 95, he did  not  return  until  1 Mar  95,  which
rendered him ineligible for promotion consideration for the  95E7  promotion
cycle.  They recommend  denial  of  applicant’s  request  for  promotion  to
master sergeant based on the rational provided.

A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air  Force  evaluations  and  indicated  that  it
should not have taken one office over 30 days to even attempt to get him  an
appointment or another office 30 days to type the report and another  office
12 days to forward the package to AFMPC.  That was over 72  days  which  was
possibly plenty of time to process his  paperwork  and  bring  him  back  on
active duty.   He  requests  that  he  be  considered  to  test  for  master
sergeant.

His complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit G.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

After receiving a statement provided by the  applicant  from  an  orthopedic
surgeon (see Exhibit H), the Chief, BCMR  Section,  SAF  Personnel  Council,
SAF/PC, reviewed this application and provided a  statement.   He  indicated
that  there  are  new  findings  of  medical  fact,  brought  forth  by  the
applicant, which can provide the Board a basis to grant him  relief  in  his
request to be eligible for his promotion cycle to master sergeant.   If  the
original diagnostic  imaging  and  interpretation  had  been  sufficient  to
arrive at the correct diagnosis without invasive means, or if  the  position
of the lesion had been more carefully considered with respect to the  weight
bearing dynamics, the applicant may not have been found  unfit  and  put  on
the TDRL.  This would have  allowed  him  to  exercise  flexibility  in  his
choice of when or whether to have elective surgery for repair and  he  could
have met his promotion board fully  qualified.   The  Chief  further  states
that it should be noted that, even if the diagnosis  of  avascular  necrosis
had been incorrectly chosen but the structural dynamics  of  the  hip  joint
had been properly evaluated,  it  would  have  been  acceptable  within  the
provisions of good medical practice and current fitness standards, to  allow
a period of observation while continuing on active  duty.   This  period  of
observation would have brought that incorrect diagnosis into  question  with
no interruption of the career of the applicant (see Exhibit I).

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy  of  the  additional  Air  Force  evaluation  was  datafaxed  to  the
applicant on 20 Mar 97 for review and response.   No  written  response  was
received from him.  However, he did indicate by  telephone  that  he  agreed
with SAF/PC’s statement.

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 probable error or injustice in regard  to  applicant’s  request
that his records be corrected to show that he was not  placed  on  the  TDRL
and that he be promoted to the grade of master  sergeant.   After  reviewing
the statement from the Chief, Physical Disability Division, we  believe  the
applicant was correctly  placed  on  the  TDRL.   It  appears  that  he  was
correctly processed through the disability system due to a  medical  problem
at the time of his medical board  that  called  into  question  his  medical
fitness for continuation on  active  duty.   Additionally,  after  reviewing
their statement, which explains the situation as it concerns the  applicant,
we do not agree that the Air Force took an  inordinate  amount  of  time  to
process his paperwork.  In view of the foregoing, we must  deny  applicant’s
request that he was not placed on the  TDRL  and  direct  promotion  to  the
grade of master sergeant.

4.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of  probable  error  or  injustice  warranting  consideration  for
promotion to the grade of  master  sergeant.   After  noting  the  statement
provided by the Chief, BCMR Section, a majority of the panel  believes  that
some form of relief is warranted  in  the  form  of  supplemental  promotion
consideration by the 95E7 promotion cycle.  It appears that if the  original
diagnostic imaging and interpretation had been sufficient to arrive  at  the
correct diagnosis without invasive means, the applicant may  not  have  been
found unfit and put on  the  TDRL  and  this  would  have  allowed  him  the
flexibility of when or whether to have elective surgery for  repair  and  he
would have met his  promotion  board  fully  qualified.   In  view  of  this
statement, a majority of the Board recommends  that  he  be  considered  for
promotion to the  grade  of  master  sergeant  for  all  appropriate  cycles
commencing with cycle 95E7.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT, be provided supplemental consideration for  promotion  to  the
grade of master sergeant for all appropriate cycles  commencing  with  cycle
95E7.

If  supplemental  promotion  consideration  results  in  the  selection  for
promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the  records
shall be corrected to  show  that  he  was  promoted  to  the  higher  grade
effective and with a  date  of  rank  as  established  by  the  supplemental
promotion and that he is entitled to all pay, allowances,  and  benefits  of
such grade as of that date.

If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent  to  supplemental
consideration that are separate and  apart,  and  unrelated  to  the  issues
involved in  this  application,  that  would  have  rendered  the  applicant
ineligible for the  promotion,  such  information  will  be  documented  and
presented to the  Board  for  a  final  determination  on  the  individual's
qualification for the promotion.

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 8 August 1996 and 1 July 1997, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chairman
                  Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Member
              Mr. Gary Appleton, Member

A majority of the panel voted to correct the records  as  recommended.   Mr.
Higgins voted to deny applicant’s requests but does not  wish  to  submit  a
minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 May 95, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFMPC/DPMAD, dated 9 Jun 95.


     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFMPC/DPMMR, dated 15 Jun 95.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFMPC/DPMAJW1, dated 5 Jul 95.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 31 Jul 95.
     Exhibit G.  Letter from applicant, undated, w/atch.
     Exhibit H.  Letter from orthopedic surgeon, undated,
                   w/atchs.
     Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/PC, dated 12 Nov 96.




                                   MARTHA MAUST
                                   Panel Chairman

AFBCMR 95-01726




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation  of  the  Air  Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of  Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to, be provided supplemental consideration  for  promotion  to  the
grade of master sergeant for all appropriate cycles  commencing  with  cycle
95E7.

      If supplemental promotion consideration results in the  selection  for
promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the  records
shall be corrected to  show  that  he  was  promoted  to  the  higher  grade
effective and with a  date  of  rank  as  established  by  the  supplemental
promotion and that he is entitled to all pay, allowances,  and  benefits  of
such grade as of that date.

      If  AFPC  discovers  any  adverse  factors  during  or  subsequent  to
supplemental consideration that are separate and  apart,  and  unrelated  to
the issues involved in  this  application,  that  would  have  rendered  the
applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information will be  documented
and presented to the Board for a final  determination  on  the  individual’s
qualification for the promotion.






                                    JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                    Director
                                    Air Force Review Boards Agency