RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01517
            INDEX CODE:  108.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The percentage of his disability be increased.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Air Force refused his request to test him for Agent Orange.  He now  has
health problems and there are several letters in his health  file  referring
to Agent Orange.  His complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, a prior service Marine, contracted his initial enlistment  in
the Regular Air Force on 13 Aug 71.  He was progressively  promoted  to  the
grade of staff sergeant, having assumed that  grade  effective  and  with  a
date of rank of 1 Sep 73.

An MEB was convened on 7 Jun  84  and  referred  his  case  to  an  Informal
Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) with a diagnosis of  allergic  blepharitis,
allergic  conjunctivitis,   allergic   rhititis,   atopic   and   seborrheic
dermatitis, moderate degenerative disease of the lumbar area,  and  internal
hemorrhoids.  On 17 Dec 85, the IPEB found him unfit  for  further  military
service  based  on  a  diagnosis  of  allergic  blepharitis   and   allergic
conjunctivitis associated with atopic dermatitis and seborrheic  dermatitis.
 The IPEB recommended  that  he  be  permanently  retired  with  a  combined
compensable rating of 30%.  The  applicant  agreed  with  the  findings  and
recommended disposition of the IPEB.  He was placed on the TDRL.  On 28  Jan
86, he was removed from the TDRL and retired in the grade of staff  sergeant
with a compensable rating of 30%.  He served 19 years and 3 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 does not have  any
of the diseases the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) currently  presumes
resulted from exposure to herbicides including Agent  Orange.   Although  he
did have a skin cancer that has been associated with  Agent  Orange  excised
in 1982,  there  is  no  report  of  recurrence  of  this  problem  and  the
association with Agent Orange has not been strong enough to  result  in  DVA
presumption  of  association.   The  DVA  recognizes   diseases   as   being
associated based on a low threshold for statistical association that  favors
the veteran.  Although immune system  problems  have  been  proposed  to  be
associated with exposure to Agent  Orange,  no  associations  with  allergic
diseases have  been  established.   The  applicant  had  clear  evidence  of
allergic disease and a predisposition to allergic disease existing prior  to
service.  While in the service his allergy conditions  worsened.   While  it
is possible that he may have been  exposed  to  Agent  Orange  there  is  no
absolute way to prove an association with  the  worsening  of  his  allergic
diseases.  Studies of Vietnam veterans known to have been  exposed  to  high
levels of Agent Orange have not reported an increase in allergic disease.

The Medical Consultant notes that  the  DVA  has  denied  service  connected
disability compensation for a condition  that  the  Air  Force  has  awarded
disability compensation.  The DVA's basis for their  determination  is  that
the applicant's allergy condition existed prior  to  service.   The  Medical
Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.   DPPD  states
that the applicant was treated fairly throughout the  disability  evaluation
process and he was afforded a  full  and  fair  hearing  as  required  under
military laws  and  policy.   Disability  boards  can  only  rate  unfitting
medical conditions based upon the individual's status at the time of his  or
her evaluation.

The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the  applicant  on  26
Jul 02 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 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 error or injustice.  It appears  that  the  applicant  believes
that his deteriorating health is the result of exposure to Agent Orange  and
requests that his  disability  rating  be  adjusted  accordingly.   However,
evidence has not been provided which would  lead  us  to  believe  that  his
medical conditions are the result of exposure  to  Agent  Orange.   We  feel
constrained to note that by law, the services assign ratings  based  on  the
degree of impairment of performance or duties at the  time  of  disposition,
while the DVA rates service-connected conditions on the basis of social  and
industrial  adaptability.   Therefore,  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.   Absent  persuasive
evidence  that  the  applicant’s  disability  processing   and   the   final
disposition of his case were in error  or  contrary  to  the  governing  Air
Force regulations, we find no 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 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  02-01517  in
Executive Session on 2 Oct 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice, Panel Chair
      Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member
      Mr. Carolyn B. Willis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Apr 02.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 20 Jun 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 23 Jul 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jul 02.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair