RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  00-03229
                 INDEX CODE:  111.00
      APPLICANT        COUNSEL:  NONE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His voluntary discharge in March 1998 be set aside  and  he  be  given  a
disability retirement, restitution of wages lost ($21,595.00) for  having
to pay healthcare premiums and out-of-pocket co-pays by himself  and  his
employer, and he be retroactively reinstated into the Serviceman’s  Group
Life Insurance (SGLI) Program.

The applicant amended his application to request a retroactive length  of
service retirement instead of a disability retirement (Exhibit K).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

An injustice occurred because:

1.  His disease was not  addressed  in  any  way  during  his  separation
Preventive Health  Assessment  (PHA).   If  it  had  he  would  not  have
separated from the Air Force.

2.  He did not receive a complete medical examination prior to separating
from the Air Force.

3.  As a result of his Hepatitis C never being  properly  addressed,  the
inherent problems of  having  sarcoidosis  and  Hepatitis  C  were  never
identified, and a complete medical counseling was never given.

4.  When the Air Force physicians  diagnosed  him  with  Hepatitis  C  in
August 1994, no action was taken.

5.  No action was taken from August 1994 through February 1998  when  his
records were used and/or reviewed by medical professionals.

In support of his submission, the applicant submits a personal statement,
copies of  various  Air  Force  instructions,  portions  of  his  medical
records, DD Form 214, Certificate of Release  or  Discharge  from  Active
Duty and AF Form 100, Request for Authorization for  Separation  (Exhibit
A).

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air  Force
on 15 January 1982.  He  continued  to  serve  on  active  duty  and  was
progressively promoted to the rank of master sergeant with  an  effective
date and a date of rank of 1 May 1995.  He was voluntarily discharged  on
6 March 1998 and credited with 16 years, 1 month, and 22 days  of  active
duty.

The relevant facts pertaining to this  application,  extracted  from  the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the
appropriate office of the Air Force.  Accordingly, there is  no  need  to
recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  reviewed  the  case  and  indicated  that
Hepatitis C is a rather ubiquitous disease affecting up to  an  estimated
20% of military veterans for which no specific treatment  is  known.   It
commonly is found, as was the case with the applicant,  because  of  some
abnormality in a laboratory test, and frequently causes no clinical signs
to point to its presence.  This  was  certainly  the  situation  in  this
particular case.  While having evidence of the disease, along with  known
minimal sarcoidosis, the applicant continued clinically well and was  not
affected for performance of his duties by either entity.   The  sine  qua
non for consideration in  the  disability  system  is  not  simply  being
diagnosed with a particular disease or condition, but rather how severely
that disease or condition affects one’s ability to perform his/her normal
duties.  As neither of these diseases had any impact on  the  applicant’s
duty performance, they were not unfitting and could not be considered for
disability processing.

The reason the applicant could be found fit for duty by the Air Force and
later be granted a service-connected  disability  by  the  Department  of
Veterans Affairs (DVA) lies  in  understanding  the  differences  between
Title 10, United States Code (USC) and  Title  38  USC.   Congress,  very
wisely, recognized that a person could acquire physical conditions  that,
although not unfitting at the time of separation, may later  progress  in
severity and alter the individual’s lifestyle and  future  employability.
With this in mind, Title 38,  USC  which  governs  the  DVA  compensation
system was written to allow awarding compensation ratings for  conditions
that are not unfitting for military service.  The BCMR Consultant advised
the applicant to maintain contact with the DVA for future evaluations  to
track the course of his diseases and to be aware  that  the  DVA  is  the
source for compensation awards for such service-incurred problems.

The Medical Consultant is of the opinion  that  the  evidence  of  record
establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that the applicant  was  properly
evaluated  and  rated,  that  voluntary  separation  without   disability
considerations was proper, and that no error  or  injustice  occurred  in
this case.  Therefore, the Medical Consultant is of the opinion  that  no
change in the record is warranted and the application  should  be  denied
(Exhibit C).

The  Physical  Disabilities  Division,   AFPC/DPPD,   states   that   the
applicant’s medical records reflect  that  he  received  a  comprehensive
medical assessment on 19 February 1998, just  prior  to  his  separation,
which resulted in his being found qualified for worldwide  service.   The
member’s sterling performance reports located in  his  personnel  records
reflect nothing but outstanding duty performance in which he received the
highest ratings available.   This  documentation  demonstrates  that  the
member was fully capable of performing his military duties  right  up  to
the time of his voluntary discharge.

Service-connected medical conditions incurred, but  not  found  unfitting
while still on active duty, may be compensated by the DVA under Title 38,
USC.  A DVA rating decision, dated 7 June 1999, reflects that the  member
was rated for sixteen (16) different medical conditions  of  which  three
(3) were denied, twelve (12) were rated at zero percent, and one (1)  for
chronic lumbosacral strain was rated at 10  percent,  effective  7  March
1998.  DVA records reflect that the member is currently being treated and
compensated for his service-connected conditions.

DPPD reviewed the entire case file and found no errors or  irregularities
that would justify a change in the military records.  The member has  not
submitted any material or documentation to show he was  unfit  due  to  a
physical disability under the provisions of Chapter 61, Title 10, USC  at
the time of his voluntary discharge.  Therefore, DPPD  recommends  denial
of the applicant’s request (Exhibit D).

The Director, Personnel Accountability, AFPC/DPW, addressed the issue  of
retroactive reinstatement into the Servicemember’s Group  Life  Insurance
(SGLI) program.  DPW states that at the time  the  applicant  voluntarily
separated from active  duty  on  6  March  1998  to  accept  another  job
opportunity, he had SGLI coverage of $200,000.   By  law,  SGLI  coverage
continues in force, at no cost to the  member,  for  120  days  following
separation or retirement, and in the applicant’s case, expired on 6  July
1998.  The law provides one exception.  If a member is medically  retired
with 100% compensation disability, SGLI coverage is extended to one  year
from the date of retirement at no cost to the member.  There are no other
provisions of law to continue  the  SGLI  coverage  beyond  the  one-year
period.  DPW recommends the applicant’s case be denied (Exhibit E).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force  evaluations  and  states  that  his
error was in what he was requesting,  not  in  making  the  request.   He
indicated that he wanted to amend his request to the  AFBCMR  to  reflect
that he desires a “Retroactive Retirement”  not  a  “Retroactive  Medical
Retirement” (Exhibit G).

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:

The Retirements and Separation Division, AFPC/DPPRR, in response  to  the
Board’s  request,   reviewed   the   information   in   the   applicant’s
correspondence dated 9 July 2001.  DPPRR states that on page  30  of  the
applicant’s original package, it is clearly documented  that  in  October
1990, the applicant was diagnosed with Sarcoidosis and in April 1994 with
Hepatitis C.  The BCMR Medical Consultant’s letter dated 13  August  2001
further states that the member was aware of his medical condition at  the
time of separation.  The applicant made a conscious decision to apply for
a Miscellaneous Separation to accept a job opportunity.  He knew that  by
separating, he would  have  no  military  retirement  benefits,  SGLI  or
medical coverage for himself and his family.  In addition, there  was  no
early retirement program for enlisted members  under  the  FY98  Military
Personnel Drawdown Plan and the applicant was not eligible to  apply  for
early retirement.  DPPRR recommends the  applicant’s  request  be  denied
(Exhibit H).

The Physical Disability Division, AFPC/DPPD,  states  that  although  the
applicant may have been diagnosed for Hepatitis C earlier in his military
career, his  records  clearly  reflect  that  he  was  fully  capable  of
performing his military duties right up until the time of  his  voluntary
discharge.  The records  conclusively  show,  and  by  the  member’s  own
admission, that he could have  remained  on  active  duty  until  he  was
retirement eligible; however, he made  a  conscious  decision  to  change
careers and accept  another  job  opportunity.   Based  on  the  member’s
decision and fairness to other veterans in the same status, the consensus
within DPPD is that  the  member  should  be  held  responsible  for  his
decision.

Following a review of the member’s correspondence date 9 July 2001,  DPPD
found no reason to believe that an injustice occurred at the time of  his
voluntary discharge in reference to a required briefing for his Hepatitis
C medical condition.  DPPD recommends that he not  be  awarded  either  a
service or disability retirement because he  does  not  meet  eligibility
criteria for either program.   DPPD  states  that  reimbursement  to  the
member for loss wages and health care premiums during a period  in  which
he had no active military affiliation at the  time  would  appear  to  be
inappropriate and in violation of public law (Exhibit I).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the additional Air Force evaluations and refers to
his previous submission and indicates it is inseparable in  content  from
the second response.  He indicates that  the  real  issue  is  not  being
addressed.  The real issue is that he was not informed of the seriousness
of Hepatitis C at any time while on active duty.   He  was  not  informed
when he was first diagnosed.  His condition was not addressed in any  way
when his records were reviewed or when physicians for  different  medical
reasons saw him between 1994 and when he was separated in 1998.  Finally,
nothing was mentioned during his separation Physical  Health  Assessment,
which according  to  Air  Force  instruction  should  have  been  a  full
physical.  An injustice truly occurred, the injustice was the  result  of
the USAF medical professionals failing to  properly  inform  him  of  his
condition before he was separated from active duty (Exhibit K).

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law  or
regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the  interest
of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate  the
existence of  probable  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and  do
not find it supports a determination  that  he  should  be  retroactively
retired from the Regular Air  Force.   The  applicant’s  medical  records
clearly show that he was diagnosed with “Hepatitis C” in  1994  and  that
medical personnel briefed him on the  issues  concerning  his  condition.
Other than his own assertions, the applicant has provided no evidence  to
the contrary.  The records further indicate that the applicant  underwent
a physical examination less than 3 weeks before his separation.  We  have
seen no evidence that this examination was deficient in any way.  At  the
time the applicant underwent this examination,  it  was  determined  that
there were no unfitting conditions that would have disqualified  him  for
worldwide military service.  This finding is supported  by  the  recorded
assessments of his duty performance.  We are constrained to note that the
applicant  made  a  conscious  decision  to  apply  for  a  Miscellaneous
Separation to accept a job opportunity.  By his  own  admission,  he  was
aware that by separating he would have no military  retirement  benefits,
SGLI or medical coverage for himself and his family.  After reviewing all
the evidence, it  is  our  opinion  that  the  fact  that  his  condition
deteriorated after his separation has not caused his separation to be  an
injustice because there is no indication  the  deterioration  could  have
reliably been predicted in February of 1998.  Accordingly, in view of the
above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we agree  with  the
opinions of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the  basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain  his  burden,
that he has suffered either an error or an 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 24 October 2001, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

            Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Panel Chair
            Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
            Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Nov 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 13 Apr 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 4 May 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPW, dated 25 Jan 01.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Jun 01.
    Exhibit G.  Applicant’s Response, dated 9 Jul 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRR, dated 5 Sep 01.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 24 Sep 01.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Sep 01.
    Exhibit K.  Applicant’s Response, dated 2 Oct 01, w/atch.




                                   HENRY ROMO JR.
                                   Panel Chair