RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02641
INDEX CODE: 108.00, 128.10
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. The recoupment of his Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP)
debt be terminated.
2. His commission be reinstated and he be medically retired.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
In July 1994, one month following his commissioning physical, he discovered
a lump superior to his left clavicle and reported it to his physician. He
was told it was nothing to worry about. In July 1995, he asked a Flight
Surgeon about the lump and was told the same thing. In January 1996, he
started experiencing lower back pain with radiation into his legs. In
April 1996, a laminectomy at T12-L1 was performed in order to decompress
his spinal cord and he was subsequently diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma. Over the following 18 months he under chemotherapy and radiation
and developed a potassium wasting nephropathy and bilateral avascular
necrosis of his femoral heads as a result. In 1997 he was informed that he
could not be considered for residency because he was a great liability and
in January 1998, he was informed that his HPSP scholarship was being
terminated.
At no time during this did he withdraw from residency. He kept the Air
Force informed and fulfilled every aspect of his HPSP contract that the Air
Force allowed. It was the Air Force that reneged, not him. It is his
strong belief, as well as the Professor of Medicine Division of Hematology,
University of Kansas, that it was his many years of exposure to hydrazine,
hydraulic fluid, jet fuel, and various other fluids while enlisted that
caused his disease.
In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, a
physician's statements, documentation associated with his HPSP termination
and recoupment action, and a copy of his HPSP contract. His complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 26 Feb 81 and served on
active duty as an Aircraft Pneudraulic Systems Technician until he was
discharged on 11 Apr 89.
Subsequent to his discharge, he was accepted into medical school and
entered medical school under the HPSP as a Reservist in September 1994. In
March 1996, he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma requiring
chemotherapy and radiation therapy leading to clinical remission. As a
result of his medical condition, he was determined to be medically
disqualified for service, his scholarship was suspended, and administrative
discharge proceedings were initiated in January 1998. He graduated medical
school and entered a civilian residency in "deferred status" (Reserve, no
financial stipends). Administrative processing, including his appeal for
return to duty and his appeal for disability retirement, concluded with his
administrative discharge on 21 Jun 01.
On 27 May 03, a debt was established in the amount of $32,638.16. His
current debt balance, which included interest and administrative fees, is
$34,357.32.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPAME recommends denial. DPAME states consistent with Title 10 §
2005, the AFHPSP contract that he signs states, "Should I become unable to
commence the period of the Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) specified
in this contract or become unable to complete my medical education program,
I agree to reimburse the United States in one lump sum for the total cost
of advanced education paid by the U.S. Government as specified in 10 USC
2005." He signed his contract thereby agreeing to the terms of the
contract. According to the contract he is required to reimburse the
government.
Information obtained from the Montana State Medical Board web site reflects
that the applicant is a licensed provider in Montana. The DPAME evaluation
is at Exhibit C.
The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical Consultant
states he developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma while in a Reserve status.
According to U.S.C. Title 10, Chapter 61, for members of the Reserve
component to be eligible for disability benefits, the impairment must be
the proximate result of duty, or were incurred or aggravated in the line of
duty while on active duty for more than 30 days. Non-duty related
impairments are eligible to be referred to the Physical Evaluation Board
solely for a fitness determination. Although hydrazine is considered to be
a carcinogen, there is no clear evidence it directly causes cancer in
humans and has only been shown to cause tumors of lung, colon, and blood
vessels (not lymph node) in animal studies. There is currently no known
association of jet fuel or hydraulic fluid exposure with cancer. If there
were a definite link between his occupational exposures while on active
duty between 1981 and 1989 with his subsequent lymphoma, he would not be
eligible for disability benefits under Title 10, but would be eligible for
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) benefits under Title 38. The DVA
review of this issue denied service connected benefits related to lymphoma
and residuals of treatment. The Medical Consultant evaluation is at
Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant states that the statement by the Medical Consultant is false.
There has been a connection between hydrazine and lymphoma, which was
published from the Armstrong Laboratory. This paper clearly demonstrates a
causal relationship between hydrazine and B-Cell lymphoma in animal models
and was implicated as causing lymphoid hyperplasia in humans. Applicant
contacted the author of the paper who refused any further correspondence
with him and referred him back to the Air Force. He no longer has a copy
of the paper and the Aerospace Medicine journal is no longer available on-
line. In addition, jet fuel and hydraulic fluid contain benzene, a
notorious carcinogen.
He has been turned over to collections while his case is under review.
Applicant believes that recoupment action is barred by Public Law as well
as by the Barring Act of 1970. The response DFAS provided to his
Congressman states he was "unable to complete his obligated service
contract." More correctly is that he was not allowed to serve due to a
diagnosis of cancer. He completed Medical School and Residency on schedule
without any delay. He honored and fulfilled his contract; it was the Air
Force who failed to uphold the contract.
His complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit H.
_________________________________________________________________
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 that would warrant termination of the
applicant's indebtedness. We took notice of his complete submission in
judging the merits of the case; however, 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. Notwithstanding the fact
that the applicant's disqualifying condition was not the result of
misconduct and was through no fault of his own, he entered into a clear
contract which provided that if he became physically disqualified he would
reimburse the government for the cost of his medical education. Evidence
has not been presented which lead us to believe that his debt was
inappropriately established or that the applicant has been treated
differently than similarly situated individuals. Therefore, in the absence
of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis upon which to
relieve him of his obligation to reimburse the government for its
expenditure of funds.
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 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 Docket Number BC-2003-02641
in Executive Session on 30 Jun 04, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Aug 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPMAE, dated 10 Sep 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Sep 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 9 Oct 03.
Exhibit F. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 19 Apr 04.
Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 24 Apr 04.
Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Jun 04.
BRENDA L. ROMINE
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2006-00282
The record demonstrates that she has secured full time employment in the medical career field for which the Air Force funded her education and training. Under the contract HPSP reimbursement would be triggered if the applicant were unable to complete her medical education program or commence the period of ADSC, failed to meet applicable Air Force physical procurement standards, or was involuntarily separated because her retention was no longer clearly consistent with the interest of...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03145
On 13 Jan 00, HQ ARPC/SGP advised the applicant that review of her physical exam was completed and entries identified a history of migraine headaches that could be disqualifying for military service. The applicant was selected for entry into active duty for an evaluation of this diagnosis to determine if a medically disqualifying condition existed. The transmittal letter also asked the applicant to provide the Board with a copy of her signed HPSP contract.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03145
On 13 Jan 00, HQ ARPC/SGP advised the applicant that review of her physical exam was completed and entries identified a history of migraine headaches that could be disqualifying for military service. The applicant was selected for entry into active duty for an evaluation of this diagnosis to determine if a medically disqualifying condition existed. The transmittal letter also asked the applicant to provide the Board with a copy of her signed HPSP contract.
His oncologist has stated that, had a testicular exam been done in October 1993, the cancer would have been diagnosed then. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Physical Education Branch, HQ AFPC/DPAME, reviewed the case and states that for the period 1986-1994, while in Medical School on HPSP Scholarship and while completing his residency, the applicant was in an inactive, obligated Reserve status. A copy of the complete Air...
a, second sentence: “I will enter graduate professional education, as selected and directed by the Air Force, immediately following graduation from medical school.”) The recruiter, who was in his first year as a Health Professions Scholarships Program (HPSP) recruiter, was unable to answer whether [the applicant] would have a free selection of a specialty option without influence by the Air Force. A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit...
2005.” DPAME states that the applicant has been aware of the debt since November 1994 and has not responded to the numerous letters from DFAS regarding payment of the debt. As of this date, this office has received no response (See Exhibit D). After reviewing the evidence of record, the Board is not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice.
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 29 Dec 00 for review and response within 30 days. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that competent authority deferred until 1 January 2003, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-00904
_________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The SAF/MRB (Legal Advisor) notes the DoD guidance, dated 18 Sep 07, clearly states “that where the inability to serve was due to medical conditions beyond the member’s control recoupment would not be sought.” Applicant’s case was considered in Jan 07 under the stricter guidance dated 8 Apr 05, but counsel argues that the Board should follow the Sep 07 guidance and find the Jan 07 decision...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-03351
Whether the applicant’s symptoms in the months prior to entering active duty were of such character or severity that would have warranted reporting by the applicant cannot be clearly determined from the available evidence, but evidence does suggest that onset of clinically significant symptoms occurred following entry onto active duty. Upon this review, the Board will find that absolutely no evidence of any mental health conditions existed prior to signing the AFHPSP contact on August 29,...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Physician Education Branch, HQ AFPC/DPAME, reviewed this application and states that applicant signed her Health Professions Scholarship Program Contract (HPSP), thereby agreeing to the terms of the contract. Thus, by reports or physical examination required by the service, with results known to the service, the service in 1987 and again in 1989 knew of applicant’s endometriosis and further...