RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  02-01388
            INDEX CODE 108.01 108.02 108.10
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 1968 discharge for physical disability, existed prior  to  service
(EPTS), be changed to a medical retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was physically and mentally sound when he enlisted, but was unsound
and incapacitated at the time of his discharge due to  adverse  mental
and physical reactions to injections he received  during  his  medical
exam. His reduced mental state made him unable to understand  or  deal
with anything. The allergies listed as EPTS  were  not  sufficient  to
warrant discharge, but were aggravated during Air Force testing.   His
100% disability rating from the Department of Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)
was caused by being injected  with  tetanus,  despite  his  proclaimed
allergy to the toxin. The reasons for  discharge  are  inaccurate  and
need to be corrected.

His complete submission, with attachments, are at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On his 4  Sep  68  enlistment  medical  history  form,  the  applicant
indicated he had, or did have,  sinusitis,  hay  fever,  shortness  of
breath and reaction to serum, drug  or  medicine.  He  had  originally
marked “Yes” to asthma and then changed  it  to  “No.”  The  physician
noted the applicant advised that skin tests as a child showed multiple
allergies to certain foods, trees,  dust  and  animals,  but  with  no
history at present except mild congestion and sneezing.  Further,  the
applicant related he had  no  history  of  sinusitis,  hay  fever,  or
allergies for the last 1½ years and had taken allergy injections until
then.

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  6  Nov  68  for  a
period of four years.

Apparently some time after his induction, the applicant  indicated  he
was allergic to tetanus shots. A 13 Nov 68 medical entry reflects that
the applicant indicated he had an allergic  reaction  “13  months  ago
after receiving some tetanus preparation at a hospital Emergency  Room
without  preliminary  testing.”  The  physician  also  indicated   his
impression of “no evidence of hypersensitivity to tetanus toxoid.” The
physician recommended separation because he did not feel the applicant
would  be  “able  to  perform  military   service   successfully   and
hypersensitization would be difficult due to marked  sensitivities  on
skin test.”  The applicant was tested, and reacted to, various allergy
skin tests performed on 15 Nov 68.

The military medical records currently  available  do  not  appear  to
reflect that, while in the  service,  the  applicant  was  ever  given
and/or had  a  reaction  to  a  tetanus/diphtheria  injection  or  was
hospitalized  or  treated  for  urticaria,  swelling   and   difficult
breathing as a result of such an incident.  The skin  tests  performed
on 15 Nov 68 did not include a tetanus skin test.

A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) examination was conducted  on  25 Nov
68.  The physician noted the applicant  conveyed  a  past  history  of
generalized urticaria and angio necrotic edema occurring approximately
13 months ago [before entering the military] after receiving a type of
tetanus preparation at an emergency room. The physician also indicated
the applicant had not experienced  a  significant  illness  or  injury
since induction. The MEB recommended the applicant be  discharged  for
allergic rhinitis and asthma, EPTS, because they believed his chronic,
progressive condition made him a  poor  risk  for  continued  military
service.

Also on 25 Nov 68, the applicant applied for a  disability  discharge.
This time, the applicant marked on his medical history  form  that  he
had been treated for allergies and asthma. He waived his  right  to  a
Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and indicated his  understanding  that
he would be discharged  for  physical  disability  without  disability
retirement or severance pay.

He was honorably discharged on 4 Dec 68 for physical disability,  EPTS
(allergic rhinitis and asthma). He had 1 month and 27 days  of  active
service.

In his appeal, the applicant provided an extract from a  DVA   rating,
dated 1 Oct 01,  for  100%  due  to  major  depressive  disorder  with
generalized anxiety disorder.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant provided his rationale for  recommending
denial.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPD provided their rationale for recommending denial.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 6 Sep 02 for review and comment within 30 days.

Pursuant to an  inquiry  by  the  AFBCMR  Staff  regarding  a  missing
Attachment #11 to his original application, the applicant forwarded  a
26 Apr 02 evaluation and indicated this should be used  as  Attachment
#11. In the evaluation, the civilian physician alleged  that,  despite
warnings of allergic reactions, the Air  Force  doctors  injected  the
applicant with a  potentially  dangerous  dose  of  tetanus/diphtheria
booster to which he  immediately  reacted  and  that  he  received  no
discharge exam [See Statement of Facts]. Further, the statement claims
the applicant’s allergic reaction to the tetanus test was not EPTS and
was the beginning of his disability which was so  aggravated  that  it
created a secondary mental condition for which  he  has  been  awarded
100% disability.

The  applicant  subsequently  submitted  an  additional  rebuttal  and
attachments.  His  major  argument  against  the  MEB   Findings   and
Recommendations is that  they  grouped  together  two  very  different
bodies of test result information and mistakenly reported them as one.
 This gave the impression that it was asthma  and  allergy  conditions
that were reactivated, which wasn’t the case at  all.  He  claims  the
administering  allergist  didn’t  have  any  proof   of   his   stated
sensitivity to tetanus toxoid and gave him an  injection  of  it.  The
applicant asserts the allergist’s notes in the records reflect he  had
a “marked sensitivity” to the injection given. [See Statement of Facts
and Exhibit A for the actual wording of the medical entry.]  He claims
the severe adverse effects of this shot  as  the  physical  cause  and
starting point of his service-connected mental  degeneration.  He  was
mentally incapacitated  as  a  result  of  toxic  poisoning  from  the
injection. His tests for allergic rhinitis and asthma  showed  nothing
significant that would prevent the performance of duty. He alleges  he
was tested with tetanus toxoid, a medication known to be poisonous  to
him, and suffered immediate severe adverse side effects that left  him
with a life-long disability. The tetanus toxoid shot had nothing to do
with allergic rhinitis, asthma or seasonal allergies, but somehow  the
reaction he had to it was classified with  allergic  rhinitis  testing
and was then used as the basis for having EPTS allergic  rhinitis  and
asthma.

Included is another statement from a civilian  doctor  at  a  holistic
resource  center.  The  doctor  claims  the  applicant   received   an
inappropriate  tetanus  toxoid  booster  immunization  shortly   after
entering military service in  1968.  This  resulted  in  an  immediate
reaction of facial swelling, urticaria and  difficulty  breathing  and
caused his health  to  deteriorate  with  depression,  hallucinations,
delusions and physical malaise. Since the applicant had been  given  a
tetanus booster 13 months earlier, there was no indication for another
booster for at least 10 years. He believes the Air Force doctors  were
guilty of malpractice.

Complete copies of the applicant’s submissions, with attachments,  are
at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________

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. After a thorough  review  of  the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we  are  not  persuaded
that his separation for an EPTS  condition  should  be  changed  to  a
medical retirement. The records indicate the applicant advised he  had
an allergic reaction when he  received  a  tetanus  preparation  at  a
hospital emergency room 13 months before  he  enlisted.  Further,  the
available records, the type of skin tests performed on 15 Nov 68,  and
the applicant’s submission do  not  support  his  claim  that  he  was
administered a tetanus injection after he  enlisted.  The  skin  tests
administered on 15 Nov 68 and to which the applicant displayed “marked
sensitivities” appear not to have included a  tetanus  injection.  The
available records do not show that the applicant was given  a  tetanus
injection,  had  a  significant  reaction  to   a   tetanus/diphtheria
injection, or was treated or hospitalized for a tetanus reaction while
in the military.  The MEB physician indicated the  applicant  had  not
experienced  a  significant  illness  or   injury   since   induction.
Therefore, we fail to see how  the  Air  Force  is  culpable  for  the
applicant’s present medical situation. The applicant appears  to  have
been appropriately discharged for concealing his allergic rhinitis and
asthma, both EPTS and not compensable.   In  view  of  the  above  and
absent persuasive evidence to the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling
basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

4.    The applicant’s case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not
been shown that a personal appearance with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 19 December 2002 under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                 Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member
                 Ms. Diane Arnold, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
01388 was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Apr 02, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 12 Jul 02.
  Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 29 Aug 02.
  Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Sep 02.
  Exhibit F.  Letters, Applicant, dated 19 Sep 02, w/atch, and
                       undated (received 4 Oct 02), w/atchs.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair