RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02036
            INDEX CODE:  100

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:


Item 20 (Have You Ever Had or Have You Now) of his Retirement Physical
Examination, Standard Form 89 (SF 89) (Report of Medical History),  be
corrected to reflect “Yes” rather than “No” under Frequent or  Painful
Urination.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In pursuing a claim for disability  for  enlarged  prostate  with  the
Veterans Administration (VA), the alteration of this record  from  yes
to no is a considerable obstacle in the way of his claim for  enlarged
prostate.  Medical records from a stay at Percy Jones General Hospital
in Battle Creek,  Michigan,  in  1947  show  a  condition  of  chronic
prostatitis; therefore, the correction of this record would reflect  a
continuing condition consistent with his claim.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 9 Nov 40, the applicant entered active duty in the Regular Army  in
the grade of private.  He continually reenlisted  and  entered  active
duty in the Air Force on 1 Nov 45.

Applicant’s SF 89 reflects alterations of three entries  in  Item  20:
“Pain or pressure in chest” changed from yes to no; “Any  reaction  to
serum, drug or medicine” changed from no to  yes;  and,  “Frequent  or
painful urination” changed from yes to no.

On 13 Dec 60, the applicant requested voluntary retirement  under  the
provisions of AFM 35-7, paragraph 72, to be effective 30 Jun  61.   On
14 Dec 60, the commander recommended approval of  applicant’s  request
for voluntary retirement.

On 1 Jul 60, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of  AFM
35-7 (Retirement) with an honorable characterization of service in the
grade of master sergeant.  He was credited with 20  years,  6  months,
and 18 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this  application  and  indicated
that approximately a year and a half  after  applicant’s  repatriation
from incarceration in German Prisoner of War (POW) camps  (Aug  44  to
Apr 45) in World War II, he was hospitalized with an  abscess  of  his
left lung, remaining hospitalized from Oct 46 to Feb 47.  During  this
hospitalization, he was  diagnosed  also  with  “chronic  prostatitis,
cause undetermined, moderate, nonveneral.”  A  single  medical  record
entry alluding to “burning on urination” is found, dated 25 Aug 45,  a
symptom that might relate to a prostate infection, but which may occur
with other urinary  tract  problems.   At  the  time  of  his  lengthy
hospitalization, an examination reportedly showed an enlarged prostate
gland and the diagnosis of prostatitis was  made.   No  other  medical
record entries are found to indicate an on-going problem with prostate
infections over the remaining 15+ years  of  service  leading  to  the
applicant’s retirement.

The applicant  implies  that  entries  on  his  medical  history  form
completed for his retirement  physical  examination  were  altered  by
unknown persons and that a  digital  rectal  examination  recorded  as
“normal” on this examination was,  in  actuality,  not  performed.   A
review of the record in question does show alteration of three entries
in Item 20 of the SF 89:  pain  or  pressure  in  chest,  frequent  or
painful urination are changed from “yes” to “no” and any  reaction  to
serum, drug or medicine is changed from “no”  to  “yes.”   The  latter
change reflected the  applicant’s  reaction  to  horse  serum  tetanus
antitoxin.  The “pain  in  chest”  question  apparently  targeted  the
hospitalization in 1945-46 for pneumonia, and the “painful  urination”
was noted in relation to a kidney stone removed in 1954.  Here  again,
no mention of chronic problems with the prostate is made.  There is no
possible way to conclude who made the actual changes  on  this  record
but it is likely they  were  made  by  the  examining  physician  when
clarification of their correct nature was determined.

The BCMR Medical Consultant further states that the  applicant  claims
that he had a digital rectal examination during an employment physical
exam shortly after his retirement and that he  was  told  then  of  an
enlarged prostate “which will probably give you some problems  in  the
future.”  The applicant does not furnish a copy of this examination to
confirm  this  alleged  finding.   As  recorded  in  the   applicant’s
retirement  physical  examination,  the  rectal  prostate   exam   was
“normal,” an examination the applicant claims was not performed.

Furthermore, it appears from the medical records available for  review
that the applicant suffered from some self-limited or curable diseases
while in the service of his country but that there were no significant
or continuing problems with his prostate gland  at  the  time  of  his
retirement that could be construed as  being  service-connected  other
than the history of prostatitis in 1945-46.  His excellent compilation
of medical records chronologically and by service  location  indicates
no such long-standing problem  or  abnormality  upon  which  the  BCMR
Consultant   can   substantiate   a   service-connected    disability.
Applicant’s request,  therefore,  to  change  his  retirement  medical
history SF 89 cannot  be  favorably  considered  and  the  application
should be denied.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and  provided  a  two-page
response (see 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 probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review
of the evidence of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that  his  SF  89  should  be  changed  as  requested.   His
contentions  are  duly  noted;  however,  we   do   not   find   these
uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and   by   themselves,   sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided  by  the  Chief  Medical
Consultant.  In this respect, it appears that there  were  alterations
of three entries in Item 20 of the SF 89; however,  we  note,  and  as
noted by the Chief Medical Consultant, there is  no  possible  way  to
conclude who made the  actual  changes  on  this  record.   We  agree,
however, that it is likely these changes were made  by  the  examining
physician when clarification of the correct nature was determined.  We
also note that during the applicant’s hospitalization from Oct  46  to
Feb  47,  he  was   diagnosed   with   “chronic   prostatitis,   cause
undetermined, moderate, nonvenereal”  and  a  single  medical  record,
dated 25 Aug 45, alluding to “burning on urination”  which  the  Chief
Medical Consultant indicated was a symptom  that  might  relate  to  a
prostate infection but which  may  occur  with   other  urinary  tract
problems.  However, no other medical  record  entries  were  found  to
indicate  an  on-going  problem  with  prostate  infections  over  the
remaining 15+ years of service leading to the applicant’s  retirement.
In view of the foregoing  and  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the
contrary, we agree  with  the  recommendation  of  the  Chief  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.  Therefore, we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of probable  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 30 September 1999, under the  provisions  of  Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
                  Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member
                Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Jul 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated
                   4 Jan 99.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Feb 99.
     Exhibit E.  Letter fr applicant, dated 22 Feb 99