SECOND ADDENDUM TO 
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02769 
  INDEX CODE:  113.01 
  COUNSEL:   
  HEARING DESIRED:  YES 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His administrative discharge due to physical disqualification be changed to a medical discharge. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On 16 November 2005, the Board considered and denied his request to change his administrative discharge to medical.  For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s request, and, the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F. 
 
On 22 February 2008, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration. On 14 March 2008, his request for reconsideration was denied because he did not submit evidence meeting the criteria for reconsideration (Exhibit G). 
 
On 12 January 2009, the applicant’s counsel submitted another request for reconsideration.  In his request for reconsideration, he provides three different medical experts to support his appeal for a medical discharge. (Exhibit H).   
 
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his medical records, point credit summary, Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Disability Rating, AF Form 623, On-The-Job Training Record, and Social Security Administration Notice of Decision. 
 
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit H. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 
 
The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The Medical Consultant does not doubt the sincerity of the letters submitted on the applicant's behalf or the clinical opinions that suggest that an occupational exposure to fuels and hydraulic fluid     may cause skin irritation and an exacerbation of the applicant's medical condition.  However, the medical opinions rendered were based upon the applicant lying down with his body resting in fuels for 6 to 8 hours, or having it dripped or spilled on his body that resulted in a permanent worsening of his medical condition.  This would normally be supported by incident/safety reports, follow-up medical treatment, e.g., external body decontamination, or a removal from those duties because of a significant or recurring exposure or an acute flare of his condition.  The Medical Consultant acknowledges that medical literature states that fuels like JP-8 may cause skin irritation. However, it is also known that the psoriasis flares may result from emotional stress, anxiety, as well as local trauma, such as bites and stings; particularly chronic scratching due to persistent itching; a vicious cycle of trauma-induced flares and corresponding resultant emotional stress responses to the flares themselves.  
 
The Medical Consultant does not wish to obstruct the applicant's efforts to receive a medical retirement if it can be determined to a reasonable degree of certainty that his work in aircraft maintenance permanently aggravated his psoriasis. After reviewing the literature stating that petroleum products may cause skin irritation, the fact the applicant had a long-standing diagnosis of psoriasis, and was employed in aircraft maintenance, which involved work with fuels, are insufficient to conclude that his psoriasis was permanently aggravated by his Reserve military service. The Medical Consultant concludes the applicant has not met the burden of proof that the performance of his duties permanently aggravated his psoriasis.  In addition, the applicant was awarded service connection and a 30% disability rating in 1999 by the DVA, which established the applicant’s psoriasis, had first presented during a previous period of active military service. The DVA is authorized to offer compensation under Title 38, USC, for any medical condition determined service connected, without regard to its impact upon a service member's retainability or demonstrated ability to perform military service; and without regard to whether the condition resulted in a medical disqualification for service versus rendered eligibility for processing through the Military Disability Evaluation System, under provisions of AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, and Separation. 
 
The complete Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit I. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
The applicant states during his Air Force career, in both active and Reserve duties, he was often exposed to jet fuels, fluids, and oils as an aircraft mechanic.  Most times, the personal protection equipment (PPE) was limited or not used at all.  He was never told by any of the health providers treating him that these chemicals cause skin/health problems.  
 
He would like to clarify his statement concerning lying down in fuels/fluids sometimes 6-8 hours or having it drip/spill upon his body.  For example, during repair of a hydraulic line, he had to gain access through the aircraft’s belly, which exposed him to oils and fluids lying in the crevices from previous leaks or current leaks.  This was done during regular fix and repair maintenance; however, he cannot recall a specific date or time.  He has provided his Air Force Job Qualification Standard for further review of tasks involving exposure for the Board’s review. 
 
He also has submitted the medical narratives from his DVA rating decision to answer the Medical Consultant’s concerns whether his work in aircraft maintenance exacerbated his condition.  His medical condition not only hampered his military career, it also caused him to lose his civilian occupation as well. He was employed as an Air Reserve Technician (ART) from 1989-1995 which required him to train other Reservists on tasks involving aforementioned chemicals; therefore, his exposure was more than a traditional Reservist.   
 
The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit K. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
 
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice that would warrant a change in the reason for discharge.  After carefully reviewing the evidence of record and the applicant’s contentions, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant’s counsel, along with the statements provided, still has not established to our satisfaction that the basis for his discharge should be changed to medical.  The applicant has failed to sustain his burden of showing he suffered either an error or an injustice, therefore we find no basis to overturn our earlier determination.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
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 BC-2004-02769 in Executive Session on 7 July 2010, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
       , Panel Chair 
       , Member 
       , Member 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
     Exhibit F. Record of Proceedings, dated 18 Jan 06, w/atchs. 
 Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Mar 08. 
     Exhibit H. Letter, Counsel, dated 12 Jan 09, w/atchs. 
 Exhibit I. Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 14 Jan 10. 
 Exhibit J. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Jan 10. 
 Exhibit K. Applicant’s Response, dated 19 Feb 10. 
 
 
 
 
        
       Panel Chair