RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-00184
            INDEX CODE:  131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for  promotion
to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the Calendar Years 1996C (CY96C)
and 1997C (CY97C) Central Lieutenant Colonel Boards, which convened on
8 Jul 96 and 21 Jul 97, respectively.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was medically and mentally unfit to academically complete  the  Air
Command and Staff College (ACSC).  Not having ACSC caused his peers to
have a greater advantage in the board scoring of  his  records,  which
resulted in his nonselection for promotion to the grade of  lieutenant
colonel.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  an   expanded
statement, extracts from his military  personnel  records,  and  other
documents associated with the matter under review.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air  Force
on 10 Mar 80 and was voluntarily ordered to extended  active  duty  on
the same date.

On 28 Feb 98, the applicant was relieved from active duty and retired,
effective 1 Mar 98, in the grade of major.  He was  credited  with  22
years, 2 months, and 16 days of active duty service.

Applicant's Officer Effectiveness  Report/Officer  Performance  Report
(OER/OPR) profile since 1987 follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

      26 Jul 87              1-0-1
      15 Jun 88              1-0-1
      15 Jun 89              Meets Standards
      15 Jun 90              Meets Standards
      15 Jun 91              Meets Standards
      16 May 92              Meets Standards
      16 May 93              Meets Standards
      16 May 94              Meets Standards
      15 Mar 95              Meets Standards
   # 15 Mar 96               Meets Standards
      28 Aug 96              Meets Standards
  ##  6 Mar 97               Meets Standards

 # Top Report at the  time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the  CY96C  (8 Jul 96)
Lt Col Board.

## Top Report at the  time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY97C  (21 Jul 97)
Lt Col Board.

The relevant facts pertaining to this application 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  Medical  Consultant,  AFBCMR,  reviewed  this   application   and
recommended denial.  The Medical Consultant noted that  the  applicant
was a highly regarded military member who held high-level positions of
responsibility but who was nonselected for promotion based on what  he
feels was improper emphasis on his not having completed ACSC.  At  the
time of his pass-over in 1996, he wrote a letter to the Chief of Staff
detailing the reason for his inability  to  complete  this  course  of
study as being the grueling, demanding schedules imposed on him by the
position he held.  He now seeks to lay blame for not  completing  this
Professional Military Education (PME) course to conditions claimed  to
be the result of service in  the  Gulf  War  theater  and  his  having
received an anthrax immunization in 1991.  The records showed he had a
long history of obstructive  sleep  apnea  which  supposedly  worsened
after his service in the  Gulf  along  with  worsening  problems  with
cognitive functions, memory,  etc.   Service  medical  records  showed
onset of several alleged Gulf War-related  problems  to  periods  well
before his Gulf service, e.g., rash and skin pigment changes dating to
early 1989 and snoring/sleep disturbances, which  has  worsened  since
1991 and since gaining some 20 pounds of weight in post-Gulf years.

The Medical Consultant indicated that  the  service  records  did  not
reflect any job performance decrements over this period of time,  and,
indeed, were marked by glowing  words  as  to  his  effectiveness  and
contributions to the mission.  He had  multiple  other  minor  medical
problems in the course of his career  that  were  not  unfitting,  and
since retirement, he has been evaluated by the Department of  Veterans
Affairs  (DVA)  who  currently  find  his  combined  service-connected
disabilities  totaling  90  percent  (chronic  fatigue  syndrome,   20
percent;  patellofemoral  (knee)  arthritis,  bilateral,  20  percent;
inflammation  of  hand   tendons,   bilateral,   20   percent   rating
determination dated 5/5/99, and not showing the total reason  for  the
90 percent rating).  An earlier determination in December 1998 had him
at 80 percent disability for an almost  completely  different  set  of
problems.  Interestingly the applicant’s claim  for  service-connected
memory loss due to undiagnosed illness was denied.

The Medical Consultant indicated that while the applicant was  treated
for some ordinary medical problems while on active duty, as will occur
in most service members, none of  these  problems  was  of  sufficient
severity to justify a finding of unfitness  or  to  produce  cognitive
changes that would have affected his ability to complete a  course  of
PME.  Medical records from the period following the  applicant's  Gulf
War service documented multiple minor problems, along with  reportedly
worsening sleep disturbances, but nothing in the  records  pointed  to
other neuropsychological problems that can in any way be attributed to
his alleged Gulf War  illness.   The  Medical  Consultant  would  have
expected to have found work-related problems  if  this  had  been  the
case, and  none  were  found  to  corroborate  the  allegations.   The
applicant’s own statement as to the reason  for  failing  to  complete
ACSC belie any other reason than his busy work schedule that prevented
him from devoting the necessary time to ensure completion.  There  was
no evidence to suggest that the applicant deserved  consideration  for
separation through the Medical Disability Evaluation System,  as  none
of  the  multiple  minor  medical  problems  he  exhibited,  nor   any
combination of them, were unfitting for continued military service  up
to the point of retirement eligibility for required length of service.

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

The PME Branch, AFPC/DPAPP1, reviewed this application and noted  that
the applicant attempted to complete PME requirements  by  seminar  and
correspondence and was unsuccessful both times.  If  the  officer  had
been promoted, he would no longer have been eligible  to  compete  for
Intermediate PME but  would  have  become  eligible  for  Senior  PME.
DPAPP1 indicated that the Officer PME Branch is not involved with  the
administration  of  nonresidence  PME  program  or   the   impact   of
noncompletion. The nonresidence program is administered by Air Command
and Staff College located at Maxwell Air Force Base (AFB).

According to DPAPP1, the applicant’s request should  be  forwarded  to
AFPC/DPPAB for recommendation of  whether  applicant’s  case  warrants
special promotion consideration.  If a determination is made that  the
officer should be promoted, their office will update  the  officer  in
the PRISM file of officers eligible for senior  rater  nomination  for
the CY01 Senior Service School (SSS) Central Selection Board.

A complete copy of the DPAPP1 evaluation is at Exhibit D.

The Appeals and SSB Branch, reviewed this application and  recommended
denial.  According to DPPP, AFI 36-2501 allows each  officer  eligible
for promotion consideration the opportunity to  communicate  with  the
promotion board president.  They have verified that the applicant  did
write a letter to the CY96C board president, but the letter has  since
been destroyed in accordance with AFI 36-2501.   Thus,  the  applicant
knew of the opportunity to explain the circumstances  surrounding  his
failure  to  complete  ACSC.   Since  there   was   no   evidence   of
administrative, legal, or material error in  the  applicant’s  record,
DPPP  indicated  that  there  was  no  reason   to   grant   him   SSB
consideration.

A complete copy of the DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response, the applicant indicated that the  Medical  Consultant
placed errors in his case, as well as gave a complete  bias  to  favor
the Air Force’s weak  rule  for  accountability.   In  his  view,  the
Medical  Consultant  put  together  a  finely  articulated  Air  Force
response to his request for justice,  but  clearly  and  intentionally
misrepresented the true facts.

He appeals to the Board to fairly evaluate his medical  records  prior
to and after his service in the Gulf War, there is a great difference.
 There is no comparison to his physical well being before the war  and
the physical deterioration of his health after his service in the Gulf
War.  As unfair as the BCMR  Medical  Consultant  has  been,  even  he
acknowledges that his medical records from the  period  following  the
applicant's Gulf War service documented multiple minor problems.  Both
the BCMR Medical Consultant and HQ AFPC/DPPP seriously violated AFI 36-
2603, in that, they  both  chose  to  ignore  the  administrative  and
medical evidence for his alleged error or injustice.

He was repeatedly examined by military  medical  doctors  for  medical
problems that continuously manifested and caused  his  well  being  to
deteriorate.  Each time he was told not to worry, all was  well.   His
family begged him to go outside of the military to other doctors,  but
he chose to place his trust in the military.  At times,  he  minimized
his medical problems because he did not want to raise  any  red  flags
that would prevent him from getting promoted or that ideal assignment.
 With deteriorating health, medical  experts  and  pentagon  officials
saying there was no Gulf War syndrome, he continued to do the best  he
could.  Although it's still being reported that thousands of Gulf  War
veterans are sick, him included, he  does  not  know  if  it  was  the
anthrax shots, burning oil  wells,  sand  mosquitoes,  pre-war  shots,
chemical exposure, etc.  He only knows that  his  health  has  greatly
deteriorated since returning to America in April 91.

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

_________________________________________________________________

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.   The  applicant's
complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his  contentions  were
duly noted.  However,  we  do  not  find  the  applicant’s  assertions
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air
Force offices of primary responsibility  (OPRs).   Therefore,  in  the
absence of clear-cut evidence to  the  contrary,  we  agree  with  the
recommendations of the OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis for
our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain  his  burden  of
establishing that he has suffered either an  error  or  an  injustice.
Accordingly, we find no compelling basis  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 11 Oct 00, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Mr. Mike Novel, Member
      Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Dec 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 11 Jul 00.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPAPP1, dated 7 Aug 00.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 11 Aug 00.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 25 Aug 00.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, applicant, dated 1 Sep 00, w/atch.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair