RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-02504

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His disability rating of 10% be increased.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Based on the  severity  of  chronic  pain  he  experiences  due  to  chronic
prostatitis, he should have received a  higher  physical  disability  rating
than 10%.

The applicant states that at the time he was  notified  of  the  recommended
medical discharge, he had only 3 days to make a decision.   If  he  appealed
the decision of the MEB, he would have to fly to Texas from Hawaii and  back
to meet the medical board in person  during  his  period  of  extreme  pain.
Since  he  needed  immediate  medical  attention  and  was  physically   and
emotionally unable to make the  trip,  he  felt  coerced  into  signing  the
decision to discharge him with a 10% disability rating.  At the time he  was
working with, and paying out of pocket  for,  a  highly  reputable  civilian
urologist in Hawaii since the military had exhausted  all  efforts  to  help
control his pain.

In support  of  his  appeal,  applicant’s  submits  copies  of  his  medical
records, literature regarding his condition, and  statements  from  civilian
physicians.

The applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 15 February 1995, the applicant enlisted in the  Regular  Air  Force  and
entered active duty.

On 18 January 1998, the  applicant  was  treated  with  antibiotics  by  the
Tripler  Army  Medical  Center  (TAMC)  emergency  room  for  urinary  tract
infection symptoms.



During the period 2 February 1998 through 18 May  2000,  the  applicant  was
evaluated by 6 different military  urologist  and  several  other  specialty
clinics for  continued  distal  urethral  pain.   As  a  result,  a  Medical
Evaluation Board (MEB) convened on 2 June 2000 and  referred  the  applicant
to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) based on  the  diagnosis  of
chronic prostatitis.

An IPEB convened on 8 June 2000 and recommended the applicant be  discharged
with severance  pay   with  a  compensable  rating  of  10%,  based  on  the
diagnosis of chronic prostatitis with S1-S2  neuritis  associated  with  low
back pain, Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities  (VASRD)
8530.  In addition, the IPEB found the  applicant  suffered  from  irritable
bowel syndrome (VASRD 7319) which was an unfitting  condition  but  was  not
compensable or ratable.

On 12 June  2000,  the  applicant  concurred  with  the  recommendation  and
findings of the IPEB and waived his right to a formal PEB hearing.

On 13 June 2000, the Secretary of the Air Force directed  the  applicant  be
separated from active service for physical disability.

On 24  August  2000,  the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-3212 (Disability -  Entitled  to  Severance  Pay).   He
received $19,126.80 in disability severance pay.  He completed  5  years,  6
months, and 10 days of active service.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Special  Actions/BCMR  Advisories,  AFPC/DPPD,   reviewed   the
application and states that there are no discrepancies in the processing  of
the applicant’s case through  the  military  disability  evaluation  system.
The records clearly  reflect  that  he  was  properly  rated  under  federal
disability guidelines, and was afforded a full  and  fair  hearing  required
under military disability laws and policy.   An  additional  review  of  the
file was conducted by the  IPEB  on  1  November  2000  that  confirmed  the
original diagnosis and disability rating as being correct  under  Department
of Defense  and  VASRD  guidelines.   Under  military  disability  laws  and
policy, USAF disability boards can only rate medical conditions  based  upon
the member’s situation at the time of his or  her  evaluation,  whereas  the
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) may later  rate  any  service-connected
medical condition based upon future employability  or  reevaluate  based  on
changes in the severity of a condition.  Therefore,  they  recommend  denial
of his request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and provided a  response  through  his
Congressman’s office.  In his response, the applicant states that  according
to expert urologists, neuritis  is  not  known  to  be  related  to  chronic
prostatitis.  Furthermore, while he was on active during in  December  1999,
the neurologist at TAMC reviewed the results of Magnetic  Resonance  Imaging
(MRI) testing and determined the S1 nerve root was probably not  related  to
his urethral pain.  No doctor or clinic within the  DVA  has  been  able  to
help him and he  has  exhausted  all  efforts  to  help  control  his  pain.
Currently,  there  are  no  prescription  medications  to  control   chronic
prostatitis.

Applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit E.


ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed the application  and  states  that  the
IPEB used a VASRD Code of 8530 to refer  to  the  applicant’s  condition  of
neuritis of the ilio-inguinal nerve with severe  to  complete  paralysis  of
the nerve.  While generally providing a correct anatomical location for  the
applicant’s pain, the code does not coincide with the  diagnosis  for  which
separation  was  actually  effected.   The  applicant’s  condition,  chronic
prostatitis might better be coded under  VASRD  code  7527,  prostate  gland
conditions and  rated  as  for  urinary  tract  infection  (the  predominant
symptom complex he suffers), 10% for necessitating  long-term  drug  therapy
and/or requiring intermittent intensive management.  However, the  level  of
compensation remains the  same.   Therefore,  the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant
recommends the application be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit G.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the additional evaluation and states that  a  defined
diagnosis was never made by the military  prior  to  his  discharge  -  only
tentative.  Due to his chronic pain, he is too  physically  and  emotionally
impaired to be employed, attend school, and have much of a social life.   He
is dependent upon his family for necessities.  Since 2000, his  pain  ranges
from moderate to  severe  and  on  occasion,  he  has  been  rushed  to  the
emergency room after oral narcotics fail to ease some of  the  severe  pain.
The 10% disability  rating  he  received  is  unjust  due  to  the  lack  of
knowledge of his illness.

Counsel’s complete response is attached at Exhibit I.



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 statements from  the  civilian
physicians provided by applicant  are  duly  noted;  however,  they  do  not
persuade us that at the time of his separation for physical  disability,  he
should have received a disability rating higher than 10%.   The  VASRD  Code
of 8539 (ilio-inguinal nerve) used by  the  IPEB  correctly  identified  the
anatomical location for his pain.  Although his condition might better  have
been coded under VASRD code 7527 (prostate gland conditions), the  level  of
compensation would have remained the same.  Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, 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 13 February 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                       Ms. Carolyn J. Watkins, Member
                       Mr. E. David Hoard, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Sep 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter,, AFPC/DPPD, dated 1 Nov 00.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 17 Nov 00.
    Exhibit E.  Letters, Mr. Moore, dated 30 Nov 00, 7 Dec 00 &
                8 Jan 01, w/atchs.


      Exhibit F.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 8 Jan 01.
      Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 Jan 01.
      Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Jan 01, w/atchs.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair