ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-01521
INDEX CODE: 110
COUNSEL: MELVIN DE’V. HORTON
HEARING DESIRED: Yes
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His voluntary separation in 1977 be changed to a disability discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
On 17 Sep 98, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request (see
Exhibit F).
On 8 Oct 98, counsel for the applicant provided two additional
statements from medical doctors and requests the Board reconsider
applicant’s request (Exhibit G).
_________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant again reviewed this application and
indicated that the testimonial letters written by two medical
practitioners in Aug 98 and an unknown date simply reiterate the
deterioration of the applicant’s medical condition over the years
since his four-year active duty stint in which he served duty
involving paint and corrosion control application to military
aircraft. The letters do not provide substantive data that prove a
connection between the applicant’s current mental status and his prior
exposure to any potential toxic substances in his Air Force duties.
What is clear from the complete military medical records available for
review is that the applicant, while exhibiting some adjustment
problems to his military duties, did not suffer from symptoms relating
to his chemical exposures on active duty. His post-service problems
with drug overdoses and attendant hospitalizations are well
documented. The BCMR Medical Consultant states that nothing is
provided in the current rebuttal package that alters the conclusion of
his earlier medical advisory. As previously reported, the applicant
did not meet a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), as none was required or
considered in light of his not having an unfitting medical/psychiatric
condition at the time of his separation from military service. It has
also been previously noted that his Air Force job involved exposure to
paints and chemicals, and the current question regarding this is not
further addressed. The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that
no change in the records is warranted.
A complete copy of the additional Air Force evaluation is attached at
Exhibit H.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Counsel for the applicant provided a three-page response with
additional document.
Counsel’s complete response, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit J.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. We have reconsidered
the entire application and the additional documentation submitted,
including the statements from the medical doctors. However, we are
not sufficiently persuaded that a revision of the earlier
determination in this case is warranted. As noted by the BCMR Medical
Consultant in his 16 Aug 99 advisory opinion, the letters written by
two practitioners simply reiterate the deterioration of the
applicant’s mental condition over the years since his four-year active
duty period in which he served involving paint and corrosion control
application to military aircraft. The Medical Consultant states that
the letters do not provide substantive data that prove a connection
between the applicant’s current mental status and his prior exposure
to any potential toxic substances in his Air Force duties. The
Medical Consultant further states that what is clear from the complete
military medical records available for review is that the applicant,
while exhibiting some adjustment problems to his military duties, did
not suffer from symptoms relating to his chemical exposures on active
duty. In view of the foregoing, the earlier decision to deny his
application is affirmed.
2. The documentation provided with this case was sufficient to give
the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a personal
appearance, with or without counsel, would not have materially added
to that understanding. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not
favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 28 February 2000, under the provisions of Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:
Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
Ms. Patricia Vestal, Member
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit F. ROP, dated 23 Sep 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit G. 2 Letters fr MDs.
Exhibit H. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 16 Aug
99.
Exhibit I. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Aug 99.
Exhibit J. Letter fr counsel, dated 10 Sep 99, w/atchs.
MARTHA MAUST
Panel Chair
On 30 Oct 98, counsel for the applicant provided documentation from the applicant and requested the Board reconsidered his request (Exhibit N). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Medical Consultant reviewed the documentation provided by counsel and indicated that applicant’s letter continues to address concerns for changes of his medical condition that have occurred since his permanent disability retirement decision and action...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1993-00292A
On 30 Oct 98, counsel for the applicant provided documentation from the applicant and requested the Board reconsidered his request (Exhibit N). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Medical Consultant reviewed the documentation provided by counsel and indicated that applicant’s letter continues to address concerns for changes of his medical condition that have occurred since his permanent disability retirement decision and action...
Counsel’s complete submission is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, the BCMR Medical Consultant, reviewed the applicant’s most recent submission and recommended denial. A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit H. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: While perhaps correctly noting that no...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1995-03647A
Counsel’s complete submission is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, the BCMR Medical Consultant, reviewed the applicant’s most recent submission and recommended denial. A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit H. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: While perhaps correctly noting that no...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-00378
Since a nuclear weapon is a weapon of war, his medical condition should be considered combat related. After a thorough review of the available evidence of record, it is our opinion that the service-connected medical condition the applicant believes is combat related was not incurred as the direct result of armed conflict, while engaged in hazardous service, in the performance of duty under conditions simulating war, through an instrumentality of war, or presumptive of toxic chemicals, and...
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. A complete copy of the DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02865
He was diagnosed with MS during his 19th year of service. The Medical Consultant Evaluation is at Exhibit E. ODUSD(MPP)/Comp reviewed the applicant's request and concurs with the findings and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02090
There is no evidence he had active tuberculosis and no evidence of lung damage from tuberculosis. After a thorough review of the available evidence of record, it is our opinion that the service-connected medical conditions the applicant believes are combat-related were not incurred as the direct result of armed conflict, while engaged in hazardous service, in the performance of duty under conditions simulating war, or through an instrumentality of war, and therefore, do not qualify for...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00102
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00102 INDEX CODE: 108.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His service-connected medical conditions, spinal disc condition and tinnitus, be assessed as combat related in order to qualify for compensation under the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Act. ...
(Exhibit C) The Separations Branch, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and recommended denial, stating the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts, which support a change in the separation reason and reenlistment code she received. After careful consideration of the circumstances of this case and the evidence provided by the applicant, we are not persuaded that the discharge action was in error or unjust. Based on...