RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02168
            INDEX CODE:  108.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her discharge for hardship reasons  be  changed  to  reflect  that  she  was
either medically retired or discharged for medical  reasons  with  severance
pay.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In October 2000, she was injured in a motor vehicle accident.   She  was  in
physical therapy for over a year and a  half  and  continues  to  experience
significant  problems  to  date.   She  was  medically   disqualified   from
attending Officer Training School because of her back pain.   Shortly  after
she reenlisted in the Air Force her doctor noted that she  might  require  a
medical evaluation board (MEB).  In December  2001,  she  ended  up  in  the
emergency room because of chest pains  and  fainting.   She  was  ultimately
diagnosed with Vaso-Depressor syncope, chest wall syndrome, a heart  murmur,
and tachycardia (fast heart rate).  A cardiologist diagnosed her with  Lown-
Ganong-Levine Syndrome, but this diagnosis was disregarded by the  military.
 She was placed in a non-worldwide deployable status and recommended for  an
MEB.  However, it was decided to allow her gaining  base  to  continue  with
her medical treatment since they  had  excellent  medical  facilities.   The
treatments were partially successful but she continued to have  difficulties
at work and experienced the  symptoms  of  her  illnesses.   Her  supervisor
found it difficult to believe that she was considered  worldwide  deployable
and suggested that she consult her physician.  She asked  her  physician  if
her conditions warranted MEB consideration and she was told that it was  not
something that she could receive MEB consideration for and she may  have  to
learn to live  with  her  problems.   In  December  2002  she  went  to  the
emergency room again with  severe  abdominal  pain  and  abnormal  bleeding,
which was diagnosed as a ruptured cyst and possibly the early  stages  of  a
Pelvic Inflammatory Disease.  In January 2003, in a follow up visit  to  her
doctor after more  bleeding  she  was  told  that  it  was  likely  she  had
breakthrough uterine bleeding and possibly a miscarriage.

Since she was ineligible to cross-train into  a  less  demanding  specialty,
was in constant pain and unable to perform her duties,  and  was  told  that
MEB was not an option, she decided to request hardship discharge  since  she
was the parent of a special-needs child.  Her request was approved  and  she
separated on 1 Jun 03.  While reviewing her  medical  records  in  preparing
for her application for Veterans Affairs benefits she noticed an  annotation
by her physician indicating that she could "need an  MEB"  during  the  same
appointment that she was told an MEB was not an option.

In  support  of  her  request,  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,
documentation associated with her disqualification,  a  civilian  leave  and
earnings statement, an  application  of  disabled  parking  privileges,  and
documentation extracted from her  military  and  civilian  medical  records.
Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force 15  Dec
94.  She was progressively promoted to the grade of staff  sergeant,  having
assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 May 00.  On 1  Jun
03, she was voluntarily discharged from the Air Force for hardship  reasons.
 She served 8 years, 5 months, and 17 days on active duty.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR medical  consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
states that the applicant experienced a variety of  medical  problems  while
on active duty.  During her period of active service, she became the  single
parent of a special needs child.  Despite her problems, evidence  of  record
indicates  she  performed  her  duties  in  an  exemplary  manner.   For  an
individual to be considered unfit for military  service,  there  must  be  a
medical condition so  severe  that  it  prevents  performance  of  any  work
commensurate with rank and experience.  The  mere  presence  of  a  physical
defect or condition does not qualify a member for  a  disability  retirement
or discharge.  In this case, her condition did  not  render  her  unfit  for
continued service.  Because a person can acquire physical  conditions  that,
although not unfitting at the time of  separation,  may  later  progress  in
severity and alter the individual's lifestyle, the DVA  compensation  system
was written to allow awarding compensation ratings for conditions that  were
not unfitting for military service.  This is the reason  why  an  individual
with a medical condition that does  not  render  the  individual  unfit  for
service  at  the  time  of  separation  can  soon   thereafter   receive   a
compensation rating  from  the  DVA  for  the  service  connected,  but  not
militarily unfitting condition.

None of her conditions were unfitting for continued military service at  the
time of  her  hardship  separation.   Although  her  history  of  back  pain
disqualified her for commissioning as a officer it did  not  disqualify  her
for continued military service or continued duty.  She  had  recurrent  back
pain since 1995 and chronic pain since 2000 and  continued  to  perform  her
duties.  Her most significant condition was  the  neurocardiogenic  syncope,
also called vaso-depressor syncope or vaso-vagal  syncope.   This  condition
includes fainting from having one's blood drawn.  The condition  is  usually
effectively treated with education and the beta-blocker  prescribed  to  the
applicant.  Depending on the severity, it could be unfitting  for  continued
military service.  Her episodes  of  syncope  did  not  interfere  with  the
performance of her military duties.  There  was  some  question  as  to  her
ability to be in a deployment position  but  her  physicians  at  that  time
concluded her condition did not interfere with worldwide  qualification  and
documentation in December 2002 is consistent with  that  evaluation.   Thus,
although she had medical problems that  may  have  in  the  future  posed  a
problem with regard to fitness for military duty, they were not  reason  for
her separation and did  not  qualify  her  for  disability  discharge.   The
Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that as a workgroup manager and NCO she was expected to  be
able to independently perform front-line troubleshooting and maintenance  of
computers.  She was not able to do so because she could  not  bend  over  to
get under desks, nor was she able to  carry  or  move  computers  and  their
peripherals.  She had extreme difficulties doing basic duties such  as  mail
distribution.  At the time of  her  separation  she  had  been  in  or  near
continuous physical restriction profiles for over two and a half years as  a
result of the accident and heart condition.  Two different physicians  noted
the possible need for an MEB.  Therefore, her fitness to  continue  military
service and ability to perform her duties  were  in  question.   Immediately
following her discharge,  she  began  receiving  intense  treatment  from  a
civilian physician.  She  had  begun  the  use  of  a  wheelchair  and  been
referred to a pain clinic as well as an  orthopedic  surgeon.   Within  mere
months of her discharge, she was classified by  the  state  of  Colorado  as
being physically handicapped.  She has had a significant loss of  work  time
(38%) due to her medical conditions.  Her  current  diagnosis  of  arthritis
and lumbosacral sprain  each  warrant  a  40%  rating  under  Department  of
Veterans Affairs guidelines.  She has two separate  disabilities  that  each
rated more than the 30% required by for a military retirement.  She met  the
requirements for an MEB in more than one area, yet one was never  initiated.


She was receiving appropriate medical care at Los Angeles  AFS  just  before
her change of station move to Buckley AFB CO.  Her physician at Buckley  AFB
discontinued treating her.  She repeatedly made appointments to address  her
concerns and the physician assistant felt they were  significant  enough  to
refer her to a doctor.  However, her concerns were  continually  disregarded
and she was told "you'll  have  to  learn  to  live  with  it."   The  major
injustice in this case is the unethical behavior of her military  physician.
 When she asked if he was considering referring her to an MEB  he  told  her
no yet he wrote yes in her medical records.  Even though she did  not  agree
with his verbal evaluation  she  relied  upon  it  as  he  was  the  medical
authority.  Being told she did not warrant an MEB  was  the  basis  for  her
decision to request hardship discharge.

In February 2004, her civilian physician performed an  MRI,  which  revealed
degenerative disc disease of L4 and L5 with moderate narrowing of  the  left
neural foramen.  Her medical history is almost a textbook  example  of  this
condition.  The symptoms are exactly  what  she  reported  to  her  military
physicians and what her military medical history shows.  In accordance  with
the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities, this would warrant  a
disability rating of 60%.

In support of her request, applicant provided  personal  statements,  copies
of documentation previously submitted, an  extract  of  Title  10  USC,  and
extract from AFI 144-157, support statements, documentation associated  with
her disability parking privileges, an extract of Title 38  USC,  an  extract
of AFI 48-123, and  additional  documentation  extracted  from  her  medical
records.

_________________________________________________________________

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  see  no
evidence which would lead us to believe that a physical  disability  existed
at the time  of  her  separation  that  would  have  disqualified  her  from
worldwide military service nor are we persuaded by her assertions  that  she
was denied rights to which she was entitled.  We  are  constrained  to  note
that the fact that a medical condition may  have  existed  while  on  active
duty does  not  automatically  mean  that  it  is  unfitting  for  continued
military service.  By law, the medical condition must be severe enough  that
it alone precludes the individual from fulfilling the purpose for  which  he
or she is employed.  An individual's inability to perform his duties is  one
of the main criteria  for  determining  his  or  her  referral  through  the
disability  evaluation  system  and  further  retention  on   active   duty.
Evidence has not been provided by the applicant,  which  would  lead  us  to
believe that she was unfit due to a physical disability at the time  of  her
discharge.  Therefore, since there were no disqualifying medical  conditions
at the time of her separation, we see no reason  why  she  would  have  been
eligible for consideration in the  disability  evaluation  system.   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 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-2003-
02168 in Executive Session on 19 Feb 04, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
      Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Jun 03, w/atchs
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 8 Dec 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Jan 03, w/atchs.




                                   VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
                                   Panel Chair