RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00946
            INDEX CODE:  108.00

            COUNSEL:  VFW

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His assignment to the Retired Reserve Section  and  placement  on  the
USAF Reserve Retired List  be  set  aside  and  that  he  be  given  a
disability retirement, with all  benefits  retroactive  to  6 February
1990.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Air  Force  Medical  Evaluation  Board  (MEB)   failed   to   properly
evaluate/perform  a  medical  evaluation  after  severe   post-cardiac
catherization bleeding at Brooks Medical Center.  He was  required  to
fly aircraft as a primary crew member  for  six  years  with  a  known
paralysis of the right thigh muscle and in severe pain.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy  of  a  letter
from the Department of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)  granting  him  a  30
percent disability for femoral nerve impairment of the right groin;  a
letter from his former supervisor (Lt Col M---, Retired); letters from
Members of Congress; and, additional  documents  associated  with  the
issues cited in his contentions.   These  documents  are  appended  at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant's military personnel  records  reflect  that  he  had  prior
enlisted service with the United States Army from 15 Feb 65  -  21 Jul
70 and with the United States Army Reserve (Inactive) from  22 Jul  70
- 14 Feb 71.  During the period 15 Feb 71 - 21 Mar 72,  the  applicant
had a break in service.  He served as a member  of  the  Air  National
Guard (ANG) and the Reserve of the Air Force (AFRES) from 22 Mar 72  -
7 Jan 90.  His last AFRES reenlistment was on 7 Sep 83, in  the  grade
of technical sergeant  (E-6),  for  a  period  of  6  years  (date  of
separation (DOS) was 6 Sep 89).

On 24 Apr 84, the applicant underwent  a  cardiac  catheterization  at
Brooks AFB, TX.  Subsequent to this procedure, the  applicant  started
to complain of chronic groin pain.  At  the  time  the  procedure  was
done, no Line of Duty Determination (LOD) was accomplished.

On 11 Sep 88, the  applicant  applied  for  transfer  to  the  retired
reserve,  effective  4  Dec  88,  and  requested  that   his   current
enlistment, with the DOS of 6 Sep 89, be extended contingent upon  his
transfer to the retired reserve.  He further  indicated  that  he  was
still having severe pain resulting from  the  cardiac  catheterization
and the nerve damage to his right leg.  On 30  Aug  89,  his  6  month
enlistment extension request was approved, changing his DOS from 6 Sep
89 to 6 Mar 90.

A Line of Duty (LOD) determination was accomplished on 20 Mar  89  due
to the applicant being considered for a medical board.  On 17 May  89,
the appointing authority concurred with the  recommended  findings  of
“In Line of Duty”.

A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) was convened on 29 Aug 89  and  their
diagnosis and findings were: Groin pain of unclear etiology, with 1984
as the approximate date of origin; incurred while  entitled  to  basic
pay; and, did not exist prior to service.   The  MEB’s  recommendation
that the applicant be returned to duty was approved on 7 Sep 89.   The
applicant was informed of the findings and recommendations of the MEB,
but refused to sign the form.

On 5 Jan 90, the applicant applied  for  transfer  to  the  Air  Force
Retired Reserve List, effective  8  Jan  90;  and,  that  his  current
enlistment, which would have expired on 28 Jan 90, be  extended  until
his transfer to the Retired Reserve List.  By Reserve  Order  EK-1564,
dated 6 Feb 90, the applicant was relieved from  assignment  with  the
756 Military Airlift Squadron, Andrews AFB, MD, and  assigned  to  the
Retired Reserve Section and placed on the Air  Force  Reserve  Retired
List, awaiting pay, effective  8  Jan  90,  in  the  grade  of  master
sergeant (E-8).  He was credited with 22 years, 2 months and  24  days
of satisfactory Federal service.

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from  the
applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by
the appropriate offices of the Air Force.  Accordingly,  there  is  no
need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant stated that in March 1998, the applicant
was rated, by the Department of Veterans  Affairs  (DVA),  30  percent
disabled for  femoral  nerve  impairment  considered  secondary  to  a
cardiac catheterization (cath) performed in April 1984 while he was on
active  duty.   The  procedure  was  undertaken  in  response  to   an
abnormality in his EKG and treadmill  stress  test  and  disclosed  no
abnormality in  his  coronary  arteries  or  heart  muscle.   It  did,
however, result in development of a large hematoma in the area of  the
groin puncture  which  resolved  spontaneously  and  without  apparent
problem.  He was subsequently returned to flying status with a waiver,
and continued in this status to the time of his retirement.  Some  six
months after the cath, the applicant began noting pain  in  the  groin
and leg, and over the ensuing years, he was thoroughly  evaluated  for
this pain with inconsistent and inconclusive  findings  regarding  its
etiology.  Of note, the pain did not interfere with performance of his
duties, and he was able to reach his required  years  of  satisfactory
service to qualify for retirement eligibility.

The  Medical  Consultant  stated  that  the  DVA  decision  to   award
compensation for the applicant’s service-connected continuing pain and
numbness  came  after  a  thorough   neurological   evaluation   which
reportedly  showed  no  femoral  nerve  impairment,  but   rather   an
impairment of the genito-femoral  nerve  supplying  sensation  to  the
scrotum and upper thigh.  Regardless, the nerve impairment was not one
that had interfered with his duty performance and therefore was not  a
condition that  should  have  been  considered  under  the  disability
evaluation system as an unfitting condition.  It was noted  on  annual
physical examinations performed in 1985, 1986 and 1987, in  connection
with the applicant’s flying  duties,  that  he  did  not  mention  any
continuing problem with pain  and  stated  his  health  was  good  and
“undamaged” on his medical history, Standard Form 93s.

The Medical Consultant indicated that the  reason  why  the  applicant
could be declared fit for duty by the Air Force and later  be  granted
30% service-connected disability by the DVA lies in understanding  the
differences between Titles 10 and 38, USC.

The Medical Consultant stated  that  evidence  of  record  establishes
beyond all reasonable doubt that the applicant was medically qualified
for continued duty, that retirement for length of service was  proper,
and that no error or injustice occurred in  this  case.   The  Medical
Consultant recommended the applicant’s request for medical  disability
retirement be denied.

A copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C.


The Physical Disability Division, HQ AFPC/DPPD, stated that a  Medical
Evaluation Board (MEB) was initiated by the Malcolm Grow USAF  Medical
Center at Andrews AFB in August 1989 for the applicant’s  groin  pain.
After a careful review, the MEB found the applicant’s condition to  be
benign and that it did not impair  his  qualifications  for  worldwide
duty,  as  such  they  recommended  he  be  returned  to  duty.   Upon
appropriate  regulatory  review,  the  Air  Force  Military  Personnel
Center, Chief of Medical Standards, confirmed the MEB’s  findings  and
directed the applicant be returned to duty.  The applicant’s case  was
not forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board  (PEB)  as  he  had  no
unfitting condition.  DPPD agrees with the evaluation  by  the  AFBCMR
Medical Consultant and finds no error or injustice that would merit  a
change to the record.  DPPD  recommended  denial  of  the  applicant’s
request.   The  applicant  has   not   submitted   any   material   or
documentation to show that he was unfit due to a  physical  disability
under the provisions of Title 10, U.S.C., at the time of his placement
on the USAF Reserve Retired List.  The  applicant  did  not  meet  the
minimum requirements under the provisions of Title 10, U.S.C., 1204 or
1205, at the time of his Reserve retirement (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that  since
the chronic groin pain began, he has received multiple evaluations  by
Cardiology and Neurology to try to elicit the reason for chronic groin
pain after the catheterization (cath).  Based on the evaluation of the
MEB Neurologist (Dr. G---), he considered that no further testing  was
necessary.  The MEB Neurologist recommended that he should be referred
for chronic pain to Walter Reed Army Medical Center.  The USAF doctors
did not refer him to Walter Reed, nor did they return  him  to  flying
duty, but instead retired him without ever notifying him of the  above
recommendation.  Items  presented  as  facts  by  the  AFBCMR  Medical
Consultant, which are either incorrect  or  merely  his  opinion,  are
addressed in the table provided (see Exhibit F).  Because USAF doctors
did not correctly diagnose the  problem  under  Title  10,  they  were
negligent in allowing him to fly prior to retiring him.  The Board now
has the chance to do the honorable  thing  and  grant  him  a  medical
disability retirement.

A complete copy of this response is appended at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant  stated  that  records  indicate  the
applicant had no significant problem with  leg  pain  at  any  of  his
annual physical examinations performed in  each  of  the  three  years
following his cath, and he was returned to  flying  status  each  year
with a waiver for his abnormal cardiogram which was found unrelated to
underlying cardiac disease.  He  was  not  forced  to  participate  in
flying activities with non-functional thigh muscles or  incapacitating
leg pain for four years after the cath was performed, as there was  no
such incapacitation present.  He went on the retired reserve list on 4
December 1988, an order that was later revoked when he was extended on
active duty per his unit’s request until his later  placement  on  the
retired  reserve  list  effective  8  January  1990.   While  he   was
apparently not on flying status during this  13-month  extension,  he,
nonetheless,  was  on  status  up  to  his  initial  retirement   list
placement...again, with no  disqualifying  defects  as  noted  on  his
annual  examinations.   The  AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant  stated  that
nothing in the applicant’s rebuttal can be taken  to  show  errors  or
omissions in the  management  of  his  medical  condition  that  would
warrant reconsideration of his request for  a  medical  retirement  in
lieu of his “TOS” retirement.  Medical  records  do  not  support  his
contention that he  suffered  incapacitating  problems  following  his
cardiac cath in 1984.  The AFBCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion
that no change in the records is warranted and the application  should
be denied (Exhibit G).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He finds the additional AFBCMR Medical Consultant advisory opinion  to
be the same advisory opinion a second time around.  He  questions  why
an MEB was not convened in 1984 and 1985.  He made reference to a 1989
statement by General Larry B---, which he feels directly shows  errors
in diagnosing his medical condition and as previously  pointed  out  a
prior MEB was not convened.  He references a  1998  statement  by  the
Department of Veteran Affairs Chief of Neuromuscular Section, Doctor D-
--.

He indicated that another example of medical injustice  that  occurred
during the 1984-88 time frame came from perjured  statements  made  by
the USAF Office of Legislative Liaison section during Presidential and
Congressional inquiries.

He stated that by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s  failure  to  review
all the pertinent medical facts and signing this official document, he
has submitted to the BCMR a false record with the intent  to  deceive,
thereby, he  is  guilty  of  perjury.   Furthermore,  reassigning  the
previous  BCMR  advisor  to  rebut   the   prior   documentation   has
demonstrated a  continuing  pattern  of  extreme  bias  and  prejudice
against this case.  To protect his rights and ensure the integrity  of
his case, he believes it absolutely essential that it be assigned to a
new and impartial advisor outside the USAF.  In either case,  it  adds
credence and supports his contention that  his  medical  records  were
tampered  with,   as   shown   in   presidential   and   congressional
documentation  from  1984  to  present.   With  the  great  number  of
administrative errors and misdiagnosis of his medical condition by the
Air  Force  doctors,  including  the  AFBCMR  advisor,  he  recommends
approval of medical retirement.

A complete copy of this response is appended at Exhibit I.
_________________________________________________________________

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.   The  Board  majority
finds  no  evidence  in  the  record  which  substantiates  that   the
applicant’s assignment to the Retired Reserve Section was improper  or
based on  invalid  considerations.   The  applicant  claims  that  the
seriousness of his condition was not given  proper  consideration  and
has provided additional evidence for review.  The  Board  majority  is
unpersuaded by the evidence presented, however, that his retirement by
reason of physical disability would be appropriate.  The  evidence  of
record reflects that the applicant’s groin pain did  not  prevent  him
from performing his Air Force duties.   In  this  respect,  the  Board
majority noted the applicant stated he was  in  good  health  and  not
taking  any   medication   during   his   periodic   flying   physical
examinations.  Inasmuch as the pain  the  applicant  endured  did  not
interfere with his duty performance, it was not considered  under  the
disability evaluation system as an  unfitting  condition.   While  the
Board majority noted the documented medical problems suffered  by  the
applicant prior to being relieved from duty, the Board majority  finds
no evidence that he was, at the time he was  relieved  from  duty  and
assigned  to  the  retired  Reserve  section,   considered   medically
disqualified for continued military service or unfit  to  perform  the
duties of his rank and  office,  which  is,  by  law,  the  basis  for
disability processing.  Therefore, the Board majority adopts  the  Air
Force rationale and  concludes  that  no  basis  exists  to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the panel finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 22 April 1999, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Henry Romo Jr., Panel Chair
                  Mr. Timothy A. Beyland, Member
                  Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member

By a majority vote, Messrs. Romo and Beyland voted to deny applicant's
request.  Mr. Shaw voted to grant the applicant's request but did  not
desire  to  submit  a  minority  report.   The  following  documentary
evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Mar 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated
                 16 Jun 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 16 Jul 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 3 Aug 98.
   Exhibit F.  Letters from applicant, dated 14 Sep 98, w/atchs,
               and 28 Dec 98.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated
               28 Dec 98.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Jan 99.
   Exhibit I.  Letter from applicant, dated 16 Jan 99, w/atchs.




                                   HENRY ROMO JR.
                                   Panel Chair