`                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01235
                 INDEX CODE 108.01 108.02
      xxxxxxxxxxx      COUNSEL:  None

      xxxxxxxxxxx      HEARING DESIRED:  No

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her medical records and fainting episodes be evaluated  by  a  Medical
Evaluation Board (MEB) as if she were still on active duty.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She had two blackout episodes in Apr and Jul 97 while on active  duty.
She should have been evaluated by an MEB before she was released  from
active duty in Dec 97. Her symptoms recurred and the  Reserves  placed
her on a profile (P4) that prevents her from participating for pay and
points.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a Reserve member who served on active duty  for  some
4½ years.  While stationed in Turkey in  Apr  97,  she  experienced  a
syncopal (fainting) episode and was seen in the emergency  department.
A second episode occurred some two months later.  A CAT  scan  of  her
head was ordered, the report of which is not found. The  day  she  was
seen on follow-up (31 Jul 97), she completed paperwork for  her  Place
Chase application, which transfer occurred in Dec 97. Records  do  not
disclose  further  investigation  of  her  fainting  episodes  and  no
definitive answer for their cause was given.  Upon  return  to  CONUS,
civilian providers evaluated her and concluded that her  fainting  was
caused by vascular instability (postural  hypotension,  or  low  blood
pressure). She  was  placed  on  medication  with  resolution  of  her
symptoms. However, while TDY in Aug 98  she  was  seen  for  “problems
staying awake” and was returned home for profiling. She was placed  on
a P4 profile which prohibits her from Reserve  participation  for  pay
and points.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant states the applicant is  correct  in  that
the fainting episodes should have been fully investigated prior to her
release from active duty. Had this been done with the same  underlying
etiology being discovered, the proper  sequence  would  have  been  to
present her case to an MEB as she indicates. However, as the condition
obviously did not interfere with performance of her duties,  the  most
likely recommendation would have been to return her to  duty  as  fit.
The case should be  remanded  to  the  applicant’s  Reserve  Unit  for
reconsideration of their decision to assign a P4 profile with  a  view
to reinstatement of her status and restoration of  any  missed  points
and pay resulting from the date of original initiation.

A copy of the complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Chief, Aerospace Medicine Division, HQ AFRC/SGP, also reviewed the
case and indicates that the  applicant’s  supporting  Reserve  Medical
Unit (RMU) took the correct action by placing  her  on  a  P4  profile
given her medical condition and continued symptoms despite the use  of
medication for control.  She must first be medically evaluated and the
results of that evaluation forwarded to  HQ  AFRC/SG  for  review  and
determination of her medical qualifications for worldwide  duty.   The
final decision in this  individual’s  case  through  the  Air  Reserve
Component (ARC) “fitness” for duty process will be made either by  the
line of the Air Force Reserve or by the Secretary  of  the  Air  Force
(SAF) depending on  the  decisions  made  at  various  points  in  the
process.   The  Chief  provides  various  options  possible  for   the
applicant.

A copy of the complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

Pursuant to a request by the AFBCMR Staff,  an  additional  evaluation
was provided by the  Chief,  USAF  Physical  Disability  Division,  HQ
AFPC/DPPD.  The Chief  concurs  with  the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant’s
comments and recommendation.  After reviewing the case file, the Chief
recommends that the applicant should be afforded  the  opportunity  to
submit her case through  the  military  disability  evaluation  system
(DES) for a non-duty related fitness determination as outlined in  AFI
36-3212, paragraph  8.19.   Once  a  fitness  determination  has  been
finalized, appropriate action concerning her retainability in the  Air
Force Reserves should be taken.

A copy of the complete additional evaluation, with attachment,  is  at
Exhibit E.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The original evaluations and the additional evaluation were  forwarded
to the applicant on 24 Sep 99 and 21 Jan 00, respectively, for  review
and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received
no response.

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.  After  considering  the
recommendations contained in the Air Force evaluations, we believe the
applicant’s medical condition should have been  evaluated  before  her
release from active duty. Therefore, we recommend she  be  afforded  a
non-duty related fitness determination under the provisions of AFI 36-
3212, paragraph 8.19, and  appropriate  action  taken  concerning  her
retainability in the Air Force Reserves.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that  invitational  orders
be issued authorizing travel via aeromedical airlift to  Wilford  Hall
USAF Medical Center, Texas, within 120 days of this decision  for  the
purpose of evaluation of her medical condition for a non-duty  fitness
determination, in accordance with AFI  36-3212,  paragraph  8.19,  and
that the results of the evaluation be forwarded to the Air Force Board
for Correction of Military Records at the earliest practicable date so
that all necessary and appropriate actions may be completed.

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 14 April 2000, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Roger E. Willmeth, Member
                  Mr. William E. Edwards, Member

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

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Mar 99, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 22 Jul 99.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFRC/SGP, dated 7 Sep 99.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 5 Jan 00, w/atch.
   Exhibit F.  Letters, AFBCMR, dated 24 Sep 99 & .




                                   DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                                   Panel Chair