RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03030
            INDEX CODE:  108.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records be corrected to reflect that  she  was  medically  retired
with a compensable rating  of  100 percent,  rather  than  voluntarily
separated under the Special Separation Benefit (SSB) program.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She separated from the  Air  Force  without  a  physical  and  without
knowing that she was inflicted with a permanent disease from the  Gulf
War, which is crippling her (Exhibit A).

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant initially enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 10 Apr 85 and
reenlisted on 10 Sep 92 for a period of 4 years.  During  her  service
on active duty, the applicant was progressively promoted to the  grade
of staff sergeant.

On 1 Jun 94, the applicant requested separation under the SSB program.
 She was released from active duty on 30 May 95 under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-3208 (Early Release Program - Special  Separation  Benefit).
She was credited with 10 years, 1 month, and 21 days  of  active  duty
service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and  recommended
denial.  The Medical Consultant indicated that a  thorough  review  of
the applicant’s medical records showed that she was treated for  minor
respiratory and gastrointestinal  illnesses  in  Saudi  and  had  some
difficulty with  arm  pain  following  administration  of  intravenous
fluids for her upset  stomach.   There  was  nothing  in  the  records
indicating other lasting effects of her  temporary  duty  assignments,
and a periodic physical examination performed in April 1994 had  found
her  qualified  for  worldwide  duty.   She  had  applied  for   early
separation in June 1994 to be effective the following  year.   As  she
had had the physical in April 1994,  she  was  not  required  to  have
another examination a year later when she separated,  and  nothing  in
the records indicated any lingering  problems  for  which  a  physical
examination or consideration in the disability evaluation system would
have been appropriate.

The Medical Consultant  noted  the  applicant’s  claim  that  she  now
suffers from a permanent disease from the Gulf that is crippling  her.
However, in his view, there was  no  substantiating  documentation  to
support this claim.  He stated  that  although  the  applicant  served
temporary duty tours in support of the post-Gulf War operations, there
was no evidence that she served in Southwest Asia at the time of  open
hostilities or in any capacity that would have put her in contact with
potentially  hazardous  materials.   The  applicant  claimed   to   be
suffering from a debilitating disease, yet provided no support for her
claim, and there was no support in her records for  any  such  lasting
disease  or  infirmity.   Her  voluntary  separation   to   accept   a
substantial monetary benefit belies her current request, as there  was
clearly no impairment present in her last year of service  that  would
have warranted disability consideration.  Therefore, her request for a
medical retirement is not found to  be  based  on  documented  medical
information.  The Medical  Consultant’s  opinion,  no  change  in  the
applicant’s records is warranted.

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

The Physical Disability Division, AFPC/DPPD, reviewed this application
and recommended denial.   DPPD  indicated  that  the  purpose  of  the
military disability evaluation system is to maintain a fit  and  vital
force by separating members who are unable to perform  the  duties  of
their office grade, rank, or rating.  Members  who  are  separated  or
retired  for  physical  disability  may  be  eligible,  if   otherwise
qualified, for  certain  disability  compensations.   Eligibility  for
disability processing is established by  a  Medical  Evaluation  Board
(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 care to the member.

According to DPPD, they have carefully reviewed the AFBCMR application
and verified that the applicant was never referred to or considered by
the Air Force Disability Evaluation System under the provisions of AFI
36-3212.  Had the applicant been referred to the  physical  disability
system during her last year of service, prior  to  her  separation  in
1995, she would have had to overcome  the  “presumption  of  fitness.”
This doctrine holds that a  member’s  continued  performance  of  duty
until their scheduled separation or retirement creates  a  presumption
that the member is fit for continued active service.  As  outlined  in
DOD directive 1332.18, Separation from the Military Service by  Reason
of Physical Disability, one overcomes this presumption only  when  the
member, because of their disability, was physically unable to  perform
adequately the duties of their office, grade, rank, or rating, or that
acute, grave illness or injury or other deterioration of the  member’s
physical condition occurs immediately  prior  to  or  coincident  with
their  processing  for  a  nondisability  retirement  or   separation.
Neither of those conditions were present in the applicant’s case.   In
DPPD’s the medical aspects of this case were fully  explained  by  the
Medical Consultant and they agreed with his advisory.   The  applicant
has not submitted any material or documentation to show that  she  was
unfit due to  a  physical  disability  under  the  provisions  of  the
governing statute at the time of her voluntary discharge  from  active
duty.

A complete copy of the DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In her response, the applicant indicated  that  she  never  served  in
Italy as indicated in  Medical  Consultant’s  advisory.   She  further
indicated there was a cease fire agreement, she was  still  considered
to be in a hazardous fire zone during her time in Saudi Arabia.  While
in Saudi Arabia, she incurred a virus in her lungs and  had  a  severe
case of poisoning.  She was also  sprayed  with  insecticides  from  a
moving truck twice daily.  In addition, she suffered severe  pain  and
blood clots in her right arm from a  needle  injection  when  she  was
being treated for the food poisoning.  According to the applicant, the
disease she incurred from the injection affected  her  right  arm  and
shoulder, her spine, hips, and legs.  In her view, the issues at  hand
are very real.  She was not informed of her rights or the severity  of
the disease.  She was erroneously let out  of  the  service  believing
that she had a chance of getting over this disease.  She believes  she
has one right and that is to continue this path for justice  and  that
if the members of the Board were in her situation, they would take her
case seriously and give her a little bit back of what she gave to  the
service.

Applicant’s complete response and additional documentary evidence  are
at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the BCMR Medical Consultant  reviewed
the applicant’s rebuttal response and additional documentary  evidence
and  again  recommended  denial  of  the  application.   The   Medical
Consultant acknowledged the error in his initial advisory with  regard
to  the  applicant’s  duty  assignments.   According  to  the  Medical
Consultant, the applicant’s records did not specifically  state  where
her temporary duties (TDYs) were served  other  than  noting  she  was
assigned to Combined Task Force  6  at  one  point,  but  the  medical
records did indicate that she was treated while on assignment in Saudi
Arabia from June  to  September  1994.   The  main  problem  that  the
applicant was treated for was an inflammation in the vein of her right
forearm that developed after she received an intravenous  infusion  of
fluids  to  correct  dehydration  secondary  to  suspected  food-borne
gastroenteritis on 12 Jul 94.  The records indicated she continued  to
have problems with pain and periodic swelling in that arm and was seen
by numerous physicians up  through  March 1995,  at  which  point  the
medical record entry noted:  “Chronic right  arm  pain—post  phlebitis
with residual discomfort persistent, well  controlled.   No  need  for
pain clinic TDY or appointment—will arrange cancellation (of scheduled
appointment).  No need for  further  evaluation.”   Importantly,  this
note also stated:  “Able to perform duties  without  exception.”   The
applicant separated two months  later,  taking  her  SSB.   Since  her
voluntary early separation, the applicant has  been  seen  by  various
civilian physicians in regards to Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA)
benefits  and  has  been  diagnosed  as  having   reflex   sympathetic
dystrophy, a response of the body to certain chronic pain  situations.
This specific diagnosis was considered but rejected by  an  Air  Force
neurologist’s evaluation performed on 8 Dec 94.

The Medical Consultant indicated the fact that the applicant  suffered
from some residual effects of the phlebitis in July  1994  is  not  in
question.  The severity of the problem, however,  reportedly  did  not
interfere with the performance of her duties,  even  though  a  letter
from her commander dated 22 May 96 indicated the applicant was  unable
to perform some of her duties (Note:   not  “all”  duties)  while  not
addressing the time frame of her greatest  limitations.   The  medical
record  entry  of  13  March  1995  clearly  noted   the   improvement
experienced  by  the  applicant  while  indicating  her  fitness   for
performance of her duties.  According to the Medical  Consultant,  the
evidence or record established beyond all reasonable  doubt  that  the
applicant was medically qualified for continued active duty, that  the
reason for her separation was proper, and that no error  or  injustice
occurred in this case.  In the Medical Consultant’s view, no change in
the records was warranted and the application should be denied.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In her response, the applicant indicated that at no  time  did  anyone
make her aware of the negative impact of her  medical  problem,  which
last for the rest of her life.  She would never  have  separated.   In
fact, had she known what she should have been  told,  she  would  have
stayed on active duty and stayed on profile until  her  retirement  or
until someone could correct her problem.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case.
However, we agree with the opinions and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force offices of  primary  responsibility  (OPRs).   The  evidence  of
record reflects that the applicant  voluntarily  separated  under  the
Special Separation Benefit program.  While  we  noted  the  documented
medical problems suffered by the applicant prior to her separation, we
find no evidence  that  she  was,  at  the  time  of  her  separation,
considered medically disqualified for continued  military  service  or
unfit to perform the duties of her rank and office, which is, by  law,
the basis for disability processing.   Therefore,  we  adopt  the  Air
Force rationale  and  conclude  that  no  basis  exists  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 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 5 Jan 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Panel Chair
      Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
      Mrs. Margaret A. Zook, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Sep 97, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 24 Mar 98.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 12 May 98.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 18 May 98.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 27 May 98, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 15 Oct 98.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 Nov 98.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, applicant, dated 25 Nov 98.




                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
                                   Panel Chair