RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03090
            INDEX CODE:  108.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect a service-connected disability.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes that his records should be coded to indicate that he has a
Gulf War disability.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a copy of his DD Form
214, Certificate  of  Release  or  Discharge  from  Active  Duty,  and
documentation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 Jan  76  in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of six years.  He was released from
active duty on 6 Jun 80 and transferred to the Air Force Reserve.   He
was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve on 20 Jan 82.   He
reenlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17  Dec  82  in  the  grade  of
sergeant.

On 30 Jun 00, the applicant was relieved from active duty and  retired
for length of service, effective 1 Jul 00,  in  the  grade  of  master
sergeant.  He was credited with 21 years, 6 months,  and  14  days  of
active duty.

Applicant’s Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR)  profile  since  1990
follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

       9 Oct 90        5
       9 Oct 91        5
       2 Aug 92        5
      19 Oct 93        5
      19 Oct 94        5
      19 Oct 95        5
       2 May 96        5
       2 May 97        5
      29 Apr 98        5
      29 Apr 99        5

A Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Rating Decision,  dated  21 Aug
01,  indicates  that  the  applicant  was  granted   service-connected
disability compensation for generalized anxiety disorder (30 percent),
temporomandibular joint dysfunction  (10 percent),  acne  rosacea  (10
percent), conjunctivitis (10 percent), gastroesophageal reflux disease
(10 percent), and a neck condition (10 percent), effective 1  Ju1  00,
for a total combined disability compensation rating of 60 percent.

The remaining  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application  are
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate  offices  of  the
Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Medical Consultant recommended denial indicating that a review  of
the service medical records found evidence of  a  variety  of  medical
problems,  none  of  which  interfered  with  the   applicant’s   duty
performance.  The applicant has  acne  rosacea,  and  entries  in  the
record  documented  abnormal   facial   erythema   and   telangectasia
consistent with the  onset  of  this  disorder.   Acne  rosacea  is  a
disorder of the skin with onset in many affected  individuals  by  age
30,  characterized  by  redness  and   dilation   of   blood   vessels
(telangectasia, redness and flushing)  typically  affecting  the  face
(especially the nose, cheek,  forehead  and  eyelids).   Ingestion  of
alcohol often precipitates a flare of  the  disease  and  worsens  the
flushing.  Some patients develop severe sebaceous gland (oil glands in
the  skin)  growth  accompanied  by  inflammation  producing  papules,
pustules (acne like), cysts and nodules.   In  addition  to  the  skin
manifestations,  the  applicant   also   experiences   the   recurrent
conjunctivitis associated with acne rosacea.  The onset  of  his  skin
disorder predated his deployment  to  the  Gulf  region  and  did  not
interfere with the performance of duty.

The  Medical  Consultant   noted   that   on   a   health   assessment
questionnaire, dated 18 Oct 99, the applicant reported  problems  with
anxiety and family problems.  On a  health  assessment  questionnaire,
dated 7 Oct 99, the applicant denied problems with anxiety  or  family
problems.  There were  no  other  medical  record  entries  where  the
applicant mentioned problems with anxiety  or  sought  care  for  this
symptom.  In his final year of service, he was evaluated for a  benign
enlargement of breast tissue called  gynecomastia,  high  cholesterol,
acne rosacea  of  several  years  duration,  recurrent  conjunctivitis
related to his acne rosacea  also  of  several  years  duration.   The
applicant received care in the dental clinic for periodontal  disease.
No mention of temporomandibular joint or jaw  pain  is  mentioned.   A
single visit for symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux is found  in  Oct
99. The applicant was treated for a stiff neck in Apr 98 with a course
of physical therapy.  No further neck  complaints  are  noted  in  the
record.   The  retirement  medical  examination,  dated  18  May   00,
documented his history of gynecomastia, hemorrhoids,  right  arm  pain
when overextended (for several years),  acne  rosacea  and  associated
conjunctivitis, periodontal problems, a remote history of Bells Palsy,
hyperlipidemia, chronic bronchitis related  to  smoking  (“emphysema,”
however pulmonary function tests were  normal),  and  gastroesophageal
reflux  disease  (GERD).    There   was   no   mention   of   anxiety,
temporomandibular joint problems,  or  neck  problems.   No  unfitting
medical condition  was  identified  at  the  time  of  his  retirement
physical examination that would have precluded  continued  service  on
active duty.

The Medical Consultant indicated that while his review of the  service
medical records found numerous medical conditions, none of which  were
unfitting for continued service or warranted  evaluation  in  the  Air
Force Disability Evaluation System (DES).  He noted that following his
separation from the  Air  Force,  the  applicant  was  diagnosed  with
generalized anxiety disorder in association  with  numerous  stressors
including adjusting to civilian life, family problems,  acne  rosacea,
and increased alcohol intake (which  also  aggravates  acne  rosacea).
There was a single report in the service medical records indicating he
experienced anxiety, but no  evidence  that  this  symptom  was  of  a
severity to interfere with duty as further evidenced by the fact  that
he did not report this symptom on his retirement medical  examination.
The applicant has acne  rosacea,  the  onset  of  which  predated  his
deployment to the Gulf region and is aggravated by alcohol use.  There
was no evidence that his health problems were related to duty  in  the
Gulf region.   The  DVA  has  evaluated  the  applicant  and  provided
disability compensation for his service-connected conditions that  are
documented in the service medical records.

According to the Medical Consultant, the  action  and  disposition  in
this case were proper and equitable  reflecting  compliance  with  Air
Force directives which implement the law.  In his view, no  change  in
the records is warranted.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is  at  Exhibit
C.

AFPC/DPPD  recommended  denial  indicating  that  a  review   of   the
applicant’s records revealed that he was never  referred  through  the
Air Force DES under the provisions of AFI 36-3212.  The purpose of the
DES is to maintain a fit and vital force  by  separating  or  retiring
members who are unable to perform the duties of their  office,  grade,
rank or rating.  Those members who are separated or retired by  reason
of a physical disability may be eligible for certain compensation. The
decision to process a member through the military DES is determined by
a Medical  Evaluation  Board  (MEB)  when  he  or  she  is  determined
medically disqualified for continued military service.   The  decision
to conduct an MEB is made by the medical treatment facility  providing
health care to the member.

According  to  AFPC/DPPD,  the  applicant’s  request  to  change   the
separation code (Item 26) on his DD Form 214 is inappropriate.  The DD
Form 214 is only utilized to document military personnel data for  the
period of service indicated on the form (Item 12).  It is not utilized
to document medical information, which is the purpose of  the  service
medical records.  The separation code “RBD” on the veteran’s  DD  Form
214 indicates a voluntary retirement for sufficient years  of  service
and is correct as stated.

AFPC/DPPD stated that although the applicant’s  records  indicated  he
was treated for various medical  conditions  throughout  his  military
career, none of these conditions show he was incapable  of  performing
the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating while on active duty.
 The individual’s medical retirement  examination,  coupled  with  his
most recent performance reports, clearly indicated he  was  reasonably
capable of performing the duties required  of  his  Civil  Engineering
career field  right  up  until  the  time  of  his  approved  military
retirement.  His medical records clearly reflected that his career was
not curtailed or shortened due to any  serious  or  unfitting  medical
conditions that may have been received as a result of his tour to  the
Gulf War.  An individual’s ability to  perform  his  or  her  military
duties is one of the primary criteria in determining  an  individual’s
fitness for continued duty during the DES process.

Due to the applicant’s reference to his DVA records, AFPC/DPPD assumed
that he desires to have his current retirement for  years  of  service
changed to a disability retirement under military disability laws  and
policy.  In their view, it is essential that the applicant  understand
the difference between the  Air  Force  and  DVA  disability  systems.
Under the Air Force system, Physical  Evaluation  Boards  (PEBs)  must
determine if an individual’s medical condition renders them unfit  for
duty.  The fact that a person may have a medical  condition  does  not
automatically mean the condition is unfitting for  continued  military
service.  To be unfitting, the medical condition must be such that  it
by itself precludes the person from fulfilling the purpose  for  which
he or she is employed.  If the PEB renders a finding of unfit, federal
law provides appropriate compensation due to the premature termination
of  the  member’s  career.   USAF  disability  boards  can  only  rate
unfitting medical  conditions  based  upon  the  individual’s  medical
status at the time of his or her MEB/PEB, in  essence  a  snapshot  of
their condition at that time.   The  DVA,  however,  is  chartered  to
provide continual medical care to veterans  once  they  depart  active
duty.  The DVA may increase or decrease a  member’s  service-connected
disability rating based on the seriousness of  the  medical  condition
throughout his or her life span.

In AFPC/DPPD’s view, there is no  reason  to  change  the  applicant’s
DD Form 214 to reflect  a  different  separation  code,  or  that  his
records be amended to reflect he was awarded a disability retirement.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on  21
Mar 03 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

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  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case.
However, we did not find  it  sufficient  to  override  the  rationale
provided by the Air Force offices of  primary  responsibility  (OPRs).
Therefore, in the absence of evidence that, at time of his  retirement
from active duty, the applicant was unfit to perform the duties of his
rank and office, within the meaning of the  law,  we  agree  with  the
recommendations of the OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis for
our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain  his  burden  of
establishing that he has suffered either an  error  or  an  injustice.
Accordingly, 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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2002-03090 in Executive Session on 30 Apr 03, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
      Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Member
      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Sep 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 11 Feb 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 17 Mar 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Mar 03.




                                   WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                   Panel Chair