RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-03372
            INDEX CODE:  108.O1
            COUNSEL:  Mr. Dale Ray Gardner

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be retired from the United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR) in the  grade
of technical sergeant and he be entitled to all the benefits thereof.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was denied reenlistment in the USAFR in February 1986 because of  medical
problems.  He was under a physicians care for several years for  control  of
hypertension.  The medications he  was  taking  were  controlling  the  high
blood pressure with both the systolic and diastolic  pressures  within  both
civil and military definitions of "normal."  However, the medical  standards
that were applied when he tried to reenlist  are  unreasonable  and  unjust.
The systolic standard for disqualification for flight personnel  is,  if  it
is greater than 140mm Hg, after treatment and if the diastolic  pressure  is
greater than 90mm Hg.  Yet for enlisted personnel the  disqualifying  factor
is 140 over 90mm  Hg,  at  any  age,  without  consideration  of  treatment.
Disqualification for worldwide service and continued active duty  occurs  if
the diastolic pressure is consistently  more  than  110mm  Hg  following  an
adequate period of therapy in an ambulatory status.   As  evidenced  by  his
medical records,  his  blood  pressure  was  consistently  below  110mm  Hg.
Standards for enlistment  in  the  USAFR  require  a  5-day  blood  pressure
reading to be recorded.  No such reading was ever  conducted,  thus  denying
him a fair review of his medical condition and a medical evaluation.

Applicant states that there appears to be a racial  pattern  of  differences
in hypertension between White and Black Americans which  may  have  resulted
in racial discrimination with regard to enlistment in the USAFR.

In  support  of  his  request  applicant  provided,  a  personal  statement,
documents associated with his denial  of  reenlistment,  extracts  from  his
medical records, documents associated with his Freedom  of  Information  Act
(FOIA) request; a copy  of  AFR  160-43,  Medical  Examination  and  Medical
Standards; documents associated with AFR 160-43 interim message changes  and
policy  letters,  printouts  from  websites;  and,   AFI   48-123,   Medical
Examination Standards.  His complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 18 Aug 52.  On 17 Aug  56  he
was released from active duty  and  transferred  to  the  Obligated  Reserve
Section (ORS) of the USAFR.  On 17 Aug 60, he reenlisted in  the  USAFR  and
his name was placed on the active  Reserve  list.   He  continuously  served
various assignments within  the  USAFR  until  he  was  transferred  to  the
Inactive  Status  List  Reserve  Section  (ISLRS)  on  4  Sep  68,  due   to
nonparticipation.  On 3 Jun 70, he was honorably discharged from the  USAFR.
 Applicant has completed 16 years  of  honorable  Federal  service  and  was
credited with a total of 12 years of satisfactory Federal service.

Applicant reached the age of 60 on 6 Jun 94.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/DPZ reviewed applicant’s request and  recommends  denial.   DPZ  states
that he has not provided any documentation that would warrant  a  change  in
the initial medical assessment at the time he was disallowed to reenlist  in
the USAFR in 1986.  The DPZ evaluation is at see Exhibit C.

The BCMR Medical Consultant  reviewed  applicant's  request  and  recommends
denial.  The Medical Consultant  states  that  the  applicant  confuses  the
medical standards for enlistment with that for  continued  service,  arguing
that the standards for continued service should have applied  in  his  case.
AFR 160-43, which was applicable in his  case,  is  clear  on  when  medical
standards for enlistment as opposed to the standards for  continued  service
will be applied when there is a break in service.  The AFI also  establishes
entry criteria provided no  more  than  93  days  has  elapsed  between  the
release date and when no more than  180  days  have  elapsed.   Some  waiver
authority is allowed  for  cases  exceeding  180  days.   AFI  48-23,  which
superceded AFR 160-43, more clearly states  that  the  enlistment  standards
are to be  used  for  a  break  in  service  greater  than  6  months.   The
applicant's break in service has been more than 16 years.

Repeated blood pressure readings are required for establishing  a  diagnosis
of hypertension or for establishing satisfactory control  by  diet  or  drug
therapy.  Since he had an established  diagnosis  of  hypertension  and  was
being treated,  no  further  testing  was  required.   Hypertension  whether
treated or untreated was disqualifying for enlistment under  AFR  16-43  and
is still disqualifying under AFI 48-123.  He also has a diagnosis  of  gout,
which is disqualifying for enlistment.   His  contention  that  hypertension
occurs  more  frequently  in  Black  Americans  is  true.   The  fact   that
hypertension is a disqualifying medical condition for enlistment is  due  to
reasons related to complications of  hypertension  that  render  individuals
unfit for worldwide duty.  The fact that he, in retrospect, did  not  suffer
complications of hypertension during the time he  may  have  served  had  he
been accepted back into the  Air  Force,  has  no  bearing  on  judging  the
decision  to  disqualify  him  for  enlistment.   The   Medical   Consultant
evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In further support of his request, applicant  provided  additional  extracts
from his medical records.  His complete submission, with attachments, is  at
Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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;  however,
we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force  offices  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,  in  the  absence  of  persuasive  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  Docket  Number  01-03591  in
Executive Session on 25 Apr 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
      Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Oct 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFRC/DPZ, dated 14 Jan 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Feb 02.
    Exhibit E.  BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 5 Mar 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 02.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Counsel, dated 15 Apr 02, w/atchs.




                                   JOSEPH A. ROJ
                                   Panel Chair