RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00949
                 INDEX CODE 108.02
                 COUNSEL:  American Legion

                 HEARING DESIRED:  No
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 1997 administrative discharge for failure in the Weight Management
Program  (WMP)  be  changed  to  a  medical  retirement  or,  in   the
alternative, he be given a medical discharge with  a  20%  rating  for
severance pay.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus  (DM)  two  months  after  his
discharge. He had symptoms of DM long  before  his  discharge  and  DM
should have been diagnosed while he was on active duty.

A copy of applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 23 April 1997, the applicant was honorably discharged in the  grade
of senior airman for failure in the WMP. He had 9 years, 3 months  and
2 days of active service.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant's military records, are  contained  in  the  letter
prepared by the appropriate office 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 performed a complete review of  all  the
applicant’s service medical records. He indicates that no post-service
medical records of any kind were found in this  review.  While  it  is
possible for a diagnosis of DM to have been  made  shortly  after  the
applicant was discharged, at the present time the Consultant found  no
evidence of this in the records he  had  for  review.  Conversely,  no
laboratory work that  accompanies  the  applicant’s  enclosed  service
records supports diagnosis of
such a condition during his service period. Further, there appears  to
have been no reason to suspect the impending  development  of  such  a
disease  while  the  applicant  was  on  active  duty.  No  error   or
irregularity occurred in the disposition of this case and no change in
the records is indicated.

A copy of the complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Chief, Physical Disability Division, HQ AFPC/DPPD,  evaluated  the
case and indicates  that,  although  the  applicant  was  treated  for
medical conditions during his period on active duty, none were serious
enough  to  make  him  unfit  for  continued  military  service.   His
overweight condition at the time of his administrative discharge  does
not constitute a physical disability. Denial is recommended.

A copy of the complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel reviewed  the  evaluations  and  provides  records  that  were
unavailable to the Medical Consultant, particularly the letter from  a
military doctor  at  the  56  MDOS/SGOMF.  The  doctor  indicates  the
applicant was admitted to Luke AFB Hospital in  diabetic  ketoacidosis
on 10 June 1997 following a one week deterioration in health.  One  of
the reasons why the applicant’s medical records were not complete when
reviewed was because vital records were inadvertently listed under his
former spouse’s social security number. His former spouse is on active
duty and it was assumed he was her dependent.  On  6  June  1998,  the
applicant received Department of Veterans Affairs ratings of  20%  for
DM and 10% for hypertension; both of these ratings have been contested
by counsel.

A complete copy of counsel’s rebuttal, with medical documentation,  is
at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant re-reviewed the appeal and also obtained
copies of pertinent laboratory work. The Consultant indicates that the
applicant has presented convincing evidence that an injustice occurred
prior to his separation. Proper management of the abnormal  laboratory
test at the time of  his  physical  examination  would  have  been  to
proceed with definitive testing via a complete glucose tolerance test.
The fact that the applicant had a history of alcohol abuse and was far
overweight were risk factors that would have added to  his  propensity
to
develop DM, a diagnosis that then would have been confirmed  prior  to
his separation. Presentation to a Medical Evaluation Board  (MEB)  and
processing in  the  disability  evaluation  system  should  then  have
followed, the eventual outcome of which would most likely have been to
separate the applicant with a 20% disability rating, minus 20% for non-
compliance in maintaining ideal body weight for over 8 of  his  9-year
period of service and failure in the alcohol rehabilitation program as
evidenced by medical history in June 1997.

A complete copy of the additional evaluation, with attachments, is  at
Exhibit G.

The Chief, Physical Disability Division,  HQ  AFPC/DPPD,  re-evaluated
the case and the new documentation. He indicates the entire case  file
was provided to the Informal  Physical  Evaluation  Board  (IPEB)  for
review. That board confirmed that, had the applicant’s April 1997  lab
tests been followed up with further studies, the diagnosis of  DM  and
hypertension confirmed and an MEB been conducted and forwarded to  the
IPEB in April 1997, the PEB would have found  the  applicant  fit  and
returned him to duty. The  applicant’s  medical  conditions  (properly
diagnosed or not) did not preclude him from the reasonable performance
of his duties and therefore could not be the basis for a discharge  or
retirement under the provisions of Title 10, USC, Sections  1201-1203.
The Chief explains  why  the  fact  that  the  applicant  subsequently
received a disability rating from the DVA for both DM and hypertension
does not justify a military disability  retirement  or  discharge.  He
supports no change to the applicant’s records.

A complete copy of the additional evaluation is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Counsel feels the punitive actions [deducting 20% from the  disability
rating for noncompliance] offered by the Medical Consultant appear too
harsh. He suggests an alternative solution of medical discharge with a
20% disability rating. He provides reasons for this alternative remedy
and raises questions.

Counsels complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the AFBCMR Staff’s request, the AFBCMR Medical  Consultant
again   reviewed   the   case   in   light   of    counsel’s    latest
rebuttal/questions and AFPC/DPPD’s dissenting opinion.  The Consultant
asserts that medical records are clear that the applicant  had  weight
problems from at least May 1990 when he weighed 180 pounds, well  over
maximum for his  age  and  height.  Efforts  at  diet  counseling  are
documented as are efforts to get him to abstain from alcohol---efforts
that apparently failed right up to a month  prior  to  his  June  1997
admission when his DM was diagnosed. While the applicant may not  have
been placed in the WMP until later, it is  clear  that  he  failed  to
reach and maintain ideal body weight from early on in  his  Air  Force
years.  While  completion  of  an  in-patient  alcohol  rehabilitation
program is  annotated  for  the  September-October  1994  time  frame,
relapse into “heavy” use  into  May  1997  constitutes  a  failure  of
rehabilitation. Therefore, the deduction for non-compliance  is  well-
justified. The Consultant asserts it is not his charge to contest  the
opinions of the disability evaluation system [AFPC/DPPD].

A complete copy of the additional evaluation is at Exhibit K.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A  complete  copy  of  the  additional  evaluation  was  forwarded  on
8 February 1999 to counsel for review and comment within 30 days.   As
of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of  probable  error  or  injustice  to  warrant  partial
relief.  Counsel’s assertions were duly noted, as was  HQ  AFPC/DPPD’s
recommendation  to  deny  the  applicant’s  request.  However,   after
thoroughly and carefully reviewing  the  available  documentation,  we
believe the  corrective  action  recommended  by  the  AFBCMR  Medical
Consultant in his second advisory is the  most  reasonable  resolution
for this case. According to the Medical Consultant, proper  management
of the abnormal  laboratory  test  at  the  time  of  the  applicant’s
examination probably would have confirmed a diagnosis of DM  prior  to
his separation. The eventual outcome would most likely  have  been  to
medically separate him with a 20% disability, the level the Department
of Veterans Affairs has found appropriate for DM needing  insulin  and
diet regulation. We agree with the Consultant that the 20%  disability
rating should be reduced by 20% due to the applicant’s  non-compliance
in maintaining his body weight for
8  out  of  9  years  of  service  and  his  failure  in  the  alcohol
rehabilitation  program.  Therefore,  we  recommend  his  records   be
corrected to the extent indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

      a.  On 22 April 1997, he was found unfit to perform  the  duties
of his office, rank, grade or rating by reason of physical  disability
incurred while entitled to receive basic pay; that  the  diagnosis  in
his case is diabetes mellitus, disability rating 20% minus 20% for non-
compliance in maintaining ideal body weight and failure in the alcohol
rehabilitation program for a total compensable rating of 0%,  VA  code
7913; that the disability is permanent.

      b.  He was not honorably discharged from active duty on 23 April
1997 for weight control failure but on that  date,  he  was  honorably
discharged  under  the  provisions  of  AFI   36-3212   for   physical
disability.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 15 June 1999, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
                  Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member
                  Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Feb 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 5 May 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 16 Jun 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Jun 98.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Counsel, undated, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 20 Aug 98
                   w/atchs.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 15 Oct 98.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Nov 98.
   Exhibit J.  Letter, Counsel, dated 1 Dec 98.
   Exhibit K.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 1 Feb 99.
   Exhibit L.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Feb 99.




                                   VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR 98-00949



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  APPLICASNT, be corrected to show that:

            a.  On 22 April 1997, he was found unfit to perform the
duties of his office, rank, grade or rating by reason of physical
disability incurred while entitled to receive basic pay; that the
diagnosis in his case is diabetes mellitus, disability rating 20%
minus 20% for non-compliance in maintaining ideal body weight and
failure in the alcohol rehabilitation program for a total compensable
rating of 0%, VA code 7913; that the disability is permanent.

            b.  He was not honorably discharged from active duty on
23 April 1997 for weight control failure but on that date, he was
honorably discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3212 for physical
disability.





   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency