RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-02417
            INDEX CODE:  108.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His honorable discharge be changed to reflect medical retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While performing his assigned military duties he  sustained  an  eye  injury
that left him legally blind in his right  eye.   On  3  Nov  98,  a  Medical
Evaluation Board (MEB) evaluated his condition and referred his case to  the
Informal  Physical  Evaluation  Board  (IPEB).   On  20  Jan  99,  the  IPEB
determined that having numerous eye surgeries and  being  legally  blind  in
his right eye are not sufficient grounds to receive medical  retirement  and
he was returned to duty.  He was advised  that  he  could  not  appeal  this
action since he did not receive a disability rating.   He  recently  learned
that he could have appealed the decision and that the  regulations  for  eye
injuries are the same as the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) by  which
he was granted 30 percent disability.

He acknowledges having a weight problem during his military career,  however
the majority of the problems occurred after his eye injury.  At the time  of
his accident he was  within  Air  Force  standards.   He  received  numerous
waivers after the accident that limited his duty and  ability  to  exercise.
He received two Letters  of  Reprimand  (LORs)  for  failed  weigh-ins  that
occurred while he was on waivers.  A letter  submitted  from  his  physician
stated "In my opinion  I  believe  that  the  steroid  eye  drops  played  a
significant role in his ability to gain or lose weight since January  1998."
 His corneal transplant was in May 1977, he was  removed  from  his  medical
waivers in December 1977 and he continued  on  the  steroid  eye  drops  for
several more months, which left him unable to exercise as vigorously  as  he
could previously.

There are some inconsistencies in his discharge case file.   The  record  of
weight loss does not match the record of body fat.  There are  many  entries
where there was a significant amount of weight loss and an increase in  body
fat.  Measurements  were  made  by  different  individuals  using  different
methods.  Several entries have dates  and/or  measurements  that  have  been
altered.
He was notified by his commander on 10 Sep 98 that he was  recommending  his
discharge from the Air Force for failure in the  Weight  Management  Program
(WMP), however, on 16 Dec 98, in a  memorandum  to  the  MEB  his  commander
stated that "He is not pending any administrative action that  could  result
in demotion  or  dismissal  from  the  USAF."   This  statement  could  have
affected the decision made by the MEB.   His  separation  was  processed  so
quickly that he was not properly counseled about the benefits  to  which  he
was entitled.

In support of his request applicant provided documents associated  with  his
administrative discharge action; statements from  his  physician;  documents
associated with his MEB  proceedings;  documents  associated  with  the  PEB
findings; an extract from the  DVA  Schedule  of  Ratings;  his  DVA  Rating
Decision; documents associated with his WMP case file; an extract  from  AFI
48-123, Medical Standards for Continued Military Service; and,  a  statement
from his supervisor.  His complete submission is appended at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  16
Apr 90.  He was progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of  senior  airman,
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 16 Oct 92.

On 10 Sep 98, applicant was notified by his  commander  that  in  accordance
with AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.65, he  was  recommending  that
he be discharged from the Air Force for exceeding body  fat  standards.   He
was advised of his rights in the matter.  He  acknowledged  receipt  of  the
notification and the commander initiated discharge proceedings  against  him
on that same date.  After consulting counsel, he waived  his  rights  to  an
administrative discharge board and to submit a written statement on his  own
behalf.  In a legal review of the discharge case file, a  wing  staff  judge
advocate found it legally sufficient and recommended that he  be  discharged
from the Air Force with an honorable discharge.  On 9 Feb 99, the  discharge
authority directed  that  he  be  discharged  with  an  honorable  discharge
without probation and rehabilitation.  Applicant was discharged  on  25  Feb
99 after serving 8 years, 10 months, and 10 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant, reviewed  applicant's  request  and  recommends
denial.  The  Medical  Consultant  states  that  the  applicant  provided  a
partial copy of a letter written by his eye doctor that  seems  to  indicate
some weight contribution from  his  use  of  eye  drops.   However,  in  the
original document the doctor states directly that these drops did  not  play
a significant role in his ability to gain or  lose  weight  between  January
and July 1998.   He  later  applied  to  the  DVA  who  granted  30  percent
compensation based on blindness in one eye and acuity of 20/40 in  the  left
eye, in spite of their examination showing acuity  of  20/20  in  that  eye,
which value should not warrant  any  disability  compensation  according  to
their standards.  Records indicate he was on  the  WMP  from  at  least  May
1995, therefore, the latter year failures were a continuation of  a  problem
that long predated his eye injury.  His visual problems  did  not  interfere
with  performance  of  his  duties  and  a  finding  of  fit  for  duty  was
appropriate (see Exhibit C).

The Chief, Special Actions, USAF Physical Disabilities Division,  AFPC/DPPD,
reviewed applicant's  request  and  recommends  denial.   DPPD  states  that
active duty personnel who undergo an  MEB,  which  results  in  their  being
returned to duty, are not authorized  rebuttal  rights  in  accordance  with
DODI  1332.38  since  a  finding  of  fit  does  not  cause  an  involuntary
separation for a physical disability.  A review of his DD Form 2697,  Report
of Medical Assessment and his last performance reports do  not  reflect  any
problems with his ability  to  perform  his  military  duties.   A  member's
inability to perform his duties is one of the main criteria for  determining
his or her referral through the disability  evaluation  system  and  further
retention on active duty.  The fact that a member may have been treated  for
a medical condition while on active duty does not  automatically  mean  that
it is unfitting for continued military service.  The medical condition  must
be serious enough that it alone precludes the  member  from  fulfilling  the
purpose for which he or she is employed.   The  applicant  has  provided  no
material or any documentation to  show  he  was  unfit  due  to  a  physical
disability at the time of his discharge (see Exhibit D).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to  the  applicant  on  2
Mar 01 for review and response 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice warranting changing  his  discharge
to  medical  retirement.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's   complete
submission in judging the merits of this case.  However,  evidence  has  not
been provided that would lead us  to  believe  that  the  actions  taken  to
effect his discharge were improper or contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the
governing regulations.  The applicant points to  the  disability  assessment
and rating he received from the DVA to support his claim.  In  this  regard,
we are constrained to note that by  law,  the  DVA  rates  service-connected
conditions on the basis of social  and  industrial  adaptability  while  the
services base rating decisions on the degree of impairment  for  performance
of duties.  In view of the above and in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the
contrary, we agree with the opinion and  recommendation  of  the  Air  Force
office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis  for
our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.  Therefore, 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 18 Apr 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Panel Chair
      Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member
      Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Aug 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 16 Jan 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 15 Feb 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 2 Mar 01.




                                   PATRICK R. WHEELER
                                   Panel Chair