RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02671
            INDEX CODE:  108.02
            COUNSEL:  Mr. Gary R. Myers

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records be corrected to reflect that she was medically  retired  with  a
disability rating of 100%, rather than 50%.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Dr. B---, of the University of Washington and an  expert  in  the  field  of
Multiple Sclerosis, said she was totally disabled  and  unable  to  work  in
August 1998.  She was  placed  on  the  Temporary  Disability  Retired  List
(TDRL) in October 1998.  By the fall of 1999 she was getting worse  and  was
placed on an experimental therapy called Deskar.  The one-year follow-up  of
the therapy showed 4 of the 13 lesions in her  brain  were  enlarging.   The
TDRL reevaluation on 17 May 2000 was performed  by  a  contract  neurologist
who totally ignored the reports the applicant gave her  that  were  provided
by Dr. B---.  The contract neurologist did not even document the  data  that
was provided to her.  This omission  of  medical  information  affected  her
unfavorable rating of 50%.  She was granted a 60% evaluation because of  her
appeal but she is 100%  disabled  and  unable  to  obtain  employment.   Her
disease has stopped progressing but she  has  continued  to  have  cognitive
problems and some performance measures are the same or worse.

In support of her request,  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement  and
documentation extracted from her medical records.  Her complete  submission,
with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a first lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force, on  27
Jun 89 and was voluntarily ordered to extended  active  duty  on  that  same
date.  She was progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of  captain,  having
assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 19 Jul 90.

On 30 Apr 98, a Medical  Evaluation  Board  referred  the  applicant  to  an
Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).  On 2 Jun 98, the IPEB found  her
unfit for further  military  service  based  on  a  diagnosis  of  cognitive
disorder associated with demyelinating disorder, consistent  with  MS,  with
considerable social and industrial impairment.  The  IPEB  recommended  that
she be placed on  the  Temporary  Disability  Retired  List  (TDRL)  with  a
combined compensable rating of 50%.  The applicant did not  agree  with  the
findings and recommended disposition of the IPEB.  On 18 Jun 98, the  Formal
Physical Evaluation Board  (FPEB)  found  her  unfit  for  further  military
service  diagnosis  of  cognitive  disorder  associated  with  demyelinating
disorder,  consistent  with  MS,  with  definite   social   and   industrial
impairment, and recommend that she be placed on the  TDRL  with  a  combined
compensable  rating  of  30%.   The  applicant  did  not  agree   with   the
recommended disposition of the FPEB.  On 13 Aug 98,  the  Secretary  of  the
Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) revised the findings  of  the  FPEB  and
directed she be placed on  the  TDRL  with  a  compensable  rating  of  50%.
Applicant was placed on the TDRL on 14 Oct  98.   A  TDRL  reevaluation  was
conducted on  4  Apr  00.   On  24 May  00,  the  IPEB  recommended  she  be
permanently retired with a diagnosis of cognitive disorder  associated  with
demyelinating disorder, with considerable social and industrial  impairment,
with a compensable rating of 50%.  The applicant  did  not  agree  with  the
findings and recommended disposition of the IPEB.  On 13  Jul  00,  the  Air
Force PEB directed that the applicant be permanently retired  from  the  Air
Force  based  on  a  diagnosis  of  cognitive   disorder   associated   with
demyelinating disorder, consistent with MS,  with  considerable  social  and
industrial impairment, with a combined disability rating of 60%.  On  7  Aug
00, she was removed from the TDRL and retired in the grade of  captain  with
a compensable rating of 60%.  She served 9 years, 2 months, and  2  days  on
active duty

On 15 Mar  99,  the  Department  of  Veteran's  Affairs  (DVA)  granted  the
applicant service connected disability with a  combined  compensable  rating
of 100%.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
states a review of her service medical records show  that  at  the  time  of
permanent disability disposition, formal psychometric testing indicated  her
cognitive  disorder  produced  a  "considerable"   Social   and   Industrial
Adaptability Impairment that correlates with a 50% rating  in  the  Veterans
Administration Schedule  for  Rating  Disabilities  (VASRD).   She  did  not
manifest  other  severe  complications  of  MS  such  as   optic   neuritis,
paralysis, or ataxia.  Testing had demonstrated an  overall  stable  pattern
of results with a predominant impairment in short-term  memory.   Her  final
rating of 60% incorporated her additional occupationally  limiting  symptoms
including fatigue.  About the same time she  was  permanently  retired,  she
underwent experimental therapy with  stem  cell.  She  provides  results  of
psychometric   testing   performed   two   years   after   the   stem   cell
transplantation that reports improvement  in  motor  function  and  variably
improved or worsened subtests on the psychometric.   Her  primary  disabling
deficit is her memory loss, which tested in the upper end of the  borderline
range.  The DoD does not define unemployability as an  inability  to  obtain
fulltime employment in a specialized career field.  "Total  disability  will
be considered to exist when the member's impairment is sufficient to  render
it impossible for the average person suffering the  same  medical  condition
to engage in substantially gainful  civilian  occupation...."   The  ratings
for both cognitive disorder  and  MS  allow  for  100  percent  ratings  and
evidence does not indicate that a 100  percent  rating  is  warranted.   The
Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In response to the Air Force evaluation, counsel provided a  statement  from
a physician who states that on the date of the applicant's PDRL  designation
she was severely impaired.  His complete response, with  attachment,  it  at
Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  Evidence  has  not  been  presented  which
would lead us to believe that there were any errors or improprieties in  her
disability processing nor are we persuaded that the 60% rating  assigned  at
that the final disposition of her case was  erroneous  or  contrary  to  the
governing Air Force regulations, which implement  and  the  law.   We  agree
with the opinion and recommendation of  the  Air  Force  office  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.   In
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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 issues 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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2003-
02671 in Executive Session on 27 Jul 04, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Panel Chair
      Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
      Mrs. Barbara R. Murray, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Aug 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 10 Mar 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Mar 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Apr 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 7 Apr 04.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Counsel, dated 14 Jun 04, w/atchs.




                                   CATHLYNN B. SPARKS
                                   Panel Chair