RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02885
            INDEX CODE:  108.03

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His record be changed to show that his disabilities encountered  after
his activation were judged to be service connected and any entitlement
to incapacitation pay and health benefits be reinstated.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Prior to his activation (in response to 9/11 attacks), he was living a
happy and healthy lifestyle.  He was working three jobs at  one  time,
he never missed a day of work due to illness, or hospitalization,  was
very active in a variety of sports, and was at a point  where  he  was
extremely happy with all aspects  of  his  personal  and  professional
life.

His life went downhill after he was activated in September  2001.   In
November 2001, he was hospitalized for the first  time  in  his  life,
during Thanksgiving, for a migraine headache attack.  He states he had
never been hospitalized for migraine headaches prior to this  episode.
He was prescribed  medication  to  control  the  migraines  and  their
frequency.  He states he had never been on  medication  for  migraines
prior to his activation.  He currently goes to bed and wakes  up  with
some sort of headache, the pain of which dictates what he will or will
not be able to accomplish during the day.  He states he suffers two to
three migraines a month that totally incapacitate him to the point  he
is forced to rest in a dark room until it passes.

Shortly after leaving the hospital, he experienced problems  with  his
breathing and was  subsequently  diagnosed  by  a  pulmonologist  with
asthma.  He states he had never been unable  to  complete  a  task  or
participate in any sporting event because of asthma.

He contends the following additional conditions manifested  themselves
just after activation.  None of them existed prior to  his  activation
and all of them require expensive medicines:

      1. Obsessive/Compulsive Disorder (OCD)

      2. Enlarged right ventricle of the heart.


      3. An inability to sleep.

After activation, he was forced to work 12 to 16  hour  shifts  for  a
month with no time off.  Many times these shifts were performed  alone
and outside where  the  weather  was  cold,  windy,  rainy,  and  very
unhealthy.  These conditions led to  him  experiencing  an  inordinate
amount of stress due to unusual  circumstances.   He  now  deals  with
daily health issues that prohibit him  from  working  and  functioning
like a normal, healthy 24-year-old male.  He states if the  Air  Force
was not  the  cause  of  his  health  problems,  it  was  at  least  a
contributing factor in causing  the  permanent  aggravation  of  these
conditions.   Either  way,  his  disabilities  should  be   considered
“service connected” rather than existing prior to service (EPTS).   He
has lost his fulltime job and will soon lose any health insurance  and
considers himself unemployable.

He received the results of the PEB on 17 July 2003 and was given until
31 July 2003 to rebut the findings.  He developed a response and faxed
it to the PEB.  Two weeks  later  he  found  out  the  PEB  had  never
received his rebuttal.  Therefore, the PEB did not  see  his  rebuttal
and considered his case closed.  He has included the Fax  confirmation
of receipt from the PEB office and also has a phone bill that shows he
faxed the documents to Texas.

He believes the PEB results to be erroneous and feels  he  was  denied
due process in that he has not been allowed to  rebut  or  appeal  the
decision of the PEB.  He contends that no one at the  PEB  office  can
explain what could  have  happened  to  his  rebuttal  paperwork.   He
contends, as a result of the nonreceipt of his rebuttal, that  he  has
been deprived of incapacitation  pay  and  medical  benefits  for  the
duration of his case.  When the PEB closed his case, as  a  result  of
not receiving a rebuttal by the deadline, his incapacitation  pay  was
stopped and he was no longer afforded medical care.  Consequently,  he
is unemployed and considered unemployable, his debt is  mounting  and,
he cannot afford to buy the five expensive medications  he  needs  for
treatment.

He contends the Disability Evaluation System (DES) is in  need  of  an
overhaul or that it  was  poorly  administered  in  his  case  to  his
financial and physical detriment.

In support of his appeal, the  applicant  has  provided  two  personal
statements, copies of several  statements  of  support  from  civilian
doctors, a copy  of  a  memorandum  from  the  PEB  to  the  applicant
soliciting either his acceptance of or a rebuttal to  their  findings,
copies of fax paperwork, and a copy of his rebuttal to the PEB.

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

_________________________________________________________________




STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant joined the Air National Guard (ANG) on 8 December  1996  and
served as a Security Forces  Specialist.   He  attained  the  rank  of
Senior Airman (SRA/E-4) with a date of rank of 1 March 1999.   He  was
activated in September 2001  in  response  to  the  11 September  2001
terrorist attacks against the United States.  On 17 July 2003, he  met
a FPEB to determine his fitness for  continued  duty.   He  was  found
unfit for continued duty and was recommended for discharge  due  to  a
condition that existed prior to service (EPTS) under other than United
States Code (U.S.C.) Title 10, Chapter 61.  His case was finalized  on
5 August 2003 following his failure to meet  an  established  suspense
date for submission of his rebuttal following the  completion  of  his
formal PEB.  He was honorably discharged from  the  ANG  for  physical
disqualification on 5 September 2003 after  serving  for  6  years,  8
months, and 28 days.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

At the request of the AFBCMR and as an exception to policy,  his  case
was forwarded to Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council  (SAFPC)
for additional review  on  9  January  2004.   SAFPC  recommended  the
applicant be discharged under other than Chapter 61, Title 10,  U.S.C.
and confirmed the finding “not in line  of  duty”;  existed  prior  to
service without service aggravation.  SAFPC notes that upon review  of
the testimony presented before the FPEB, the remarks of the IPEB,  the
service medical record, and  the  narrative  summary  of  the  Medical
Evaluation Board (MEB), that they decided to concur with the  previous
finding.  SAFPC also considered application of service  connection  to
the member’s medical condition, as he desires, noting the exacerbation
of his symptoms within a period of active military service in which he
was entitled to receive basic pay.

SAFPC states the applicant’s predisposition for  manifesting  OCD  and
somatoform symptoms, within the first week of his  “activation,”  were
the result of a preexisting underlying medical disorder that  predated
his transition to “active” military status.   SAFPC  acknowledges  the
member’s OCD symptoms may  have  become  more  intense  following  his
“activation”, such as his use of  padlocks  to  guarantee  his  safety
while at home, the specific  arrangement  of  his  clothing  within  a
drawer, and the ritualistic cleaning of his apartment (“four  or  five
times a day”).  However, SAFPC is of the opinion that his demonstrated
pattern of behavior following the events of “9/11”  is  representative
of a spectrum of symptoms resulting from  his  underlying  preexisting
medical disorder and does not represent permanent service-aggravation.
  Further,  his  demonstrated   somatoform   response   (chest   pain,
respiratory difficulties, headaches, fatigue,  anxiety)  to  stressors
put upon him by the events of “9/11” less than one  week  after  being
activated, also bear a close causal relationship with  his  underlying
chronic OCD.  Therefore, the decision to discharge  the  member  under
other than Chapter 61, Title 10, U.S.C.: “Signs or symptoms of chronic
disease identified so soon  after  the  day  of  entry  into  Military
Service (usually 180 days) indicates that the disease could  not  have
originated in that short a period and will be accepted as  proof  that
the  disease  manifested  prior  to  entrance  into  active   Military
Service.”  DPPD highly recommends the AFBCMR support SAFPC’s  decision
and subsequently uphold the previous discharge action.

SAFPC’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial and defers to the SAFPC advisory for  it’s
rationale for denial of relief.

DPPD’s evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states the advisory’s contention that his case was finalized
as he failed to meet an established suspense date  for  submission  of
his rebuttal is incorrect.  He points to his submission to the  AFBCMR
wherein he includes a phone bill along with a fax  confirmation  sheet
that proves the fax was sent and received.  He contends  the  advisory
is detrimental to  his  case  in  this  regard  as  it  shows  he  was
delinquent in taking care of his paperwork.

He states the comment in the advisory  that  indicates,  “…within  the
first  week  of  his  activation…were  the  result  of  a  preexisting
underlying medical disorder that predated his transition  to  ‘active’
military service.”  He states it only looks like it happened that way,
as the fact is that his activation orders started on 3  October  2001.
Further, he worked 14-16 hour days, seven days a week for three  weeks
before getting a day off.  He contends he was not suddenly sick  in  a
week.  He states it was  the  accumulation  of  the  9/11  attack  and
continually being worked the way he was.  He addresses the  advisory’s
statement that should an injury or a sickness occur within  the  first
180 days of being on active duty  that  it  is  considered  definitely
EPTS.  He states this is  completely  inaccurate  and  not  true.   He
stresses and reemphasizes the fact  that  before  9/11  he  was  never
treated for any of the  conditions  he  is  now  suffering  from.   He
contends the advisory’s statement that “Causes are likely multiple and
related to the individual’s  preexisting  physiological,  mental,  and
emotional background” is wrong as, again, there  were  no  preexisting
conditions as he was not seen  nor  treated  for  any  of  the  stated
conditions prior to 9/11.  He has trouble understanding how  his  case
can be considered preexisting.

He contends the 180-day rule has made his case easy to deny.  He  asks
that the  Board  really  look  at  what  has  happened  to  him  after
activation.  He still deals with daily headaches and migraines, severe
OCD issues, respiratory problems, and wondering if he will ever find a
job that he can do under his medical circumstances.  He  contends  the
loss of his paperwork by the FPEB caused him  to  be  discharged  from
active duty without further  pay  or  medical  benefits.   Even  after
showing proof that his fax was received, he has suffered over the past
eight months wondering what was  happening  with  his  situation.   He
feels he was not treated fairly; that he proved his case by showing he
indeed got the pertinent rebuttal paperwork to the appropriate  office
prior to the suspense date.  He believes 100% that the military caused
his severe health issues.  There  is  no  record  showing  any  health
concerns prior to 9/11.  Only after  his  activation  did  his  health
deteriorate and he became disabled.

He thanks the Board for their time, patience, and  understanding.   He
asks that the Board take sufficient time and energy in completing  his
case with absolutely no bias and predisposition.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no  change  to  the
record is warranted.  He notes the applicant  was  discharged  without
disability benefits for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) associated
with undifferentiated somatoform disorder, asthma, and headaches  that
were determined by the PEB and SAFPC to have existed prior to  service
(EPTS) without service aggravation.  Based  on  the  preponderance  of
evidence and accepted medical principles, the reviewer concludes  that
the applicant’s OCD  (with  associated  somatoform  features)  existed
prior to entry onto  active  military  service.   Evidence  of  record
indicates the applicant’s symptoms worsened in response to  a  breakup
with his girlfriend and the  September  11,  2001  terrorist  attacks.
Although he was ordered to active duty  in  the  few  weeks  prior  to
worsening of his symptoms, he was serving at his home base  and  there
is no evidence in the record that indicates there was  any  aspect  of
his military duties that directly or permanently  contributed  to  the
exacerbation of his symptoms.  His headaches were a  manifestation  of
his  underlying  psychological  problem  and   were   not   separately
unfitting.  He had a  documented,  pre-service  history  of  exercise-
induced bronchial hyper-reactivity (initially diagnosed  as  exercise-
induced asthma,  later  retracted),  and  recurrent  bronchitis.   His
symptoms of chest pains and shortness of breath were  due  to  anxiety
and not asthma.  The  positive  methacholine  bronchoprovocation  test
following  activation  on  active  duty  confirmed  the  presence   of
bronchial hyper-reactivity and does not represent a new  diagnosis  of
asthma incurred while on active duty, or a permanent aggravation of  a
preexisting condition.  He states the action and disposition  in  this
case are proper and equitable reflecting  compliance  with  Air  Force
directives that implement the law.

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant contends that a variety of incorrect statements need  to  be
addressed.  He argues that the statement in the advisory “In  the  two
weeks before his  mobilization,  the  applicant  had  apparently  been
performing his annual two week tour of duty…” is incorrect  as,  prior
to 9/11 he was working at his state job and filling back-fill days for
the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) program.   He  states  that  once  9/11
happened, he volunteered for active duty for as long as it  took.   He
states he originally volunteered for a year but was counseled  to  not
do so as he would then be considered deployable at any time and  would
be under the control of the Air Force.  He chose not to volunteer  for
that amount of time and became sick in the  3  to  4-week  time  frame
following 9/11.

Regarding  the  advisory’s  statement  “Review  of  available  medical
records contained in the case file indicates the applicant experienced
obsessive-compulsive symptoms prior to 9/11 and  had  been  under  the
care of a psychologist for two years prior  to  his  activation…”  the
applicant contends he did see a doctor for personal  reasons  but  not
for OCD.  He states that comment is irrelevant to his case  and  needs
to be disregarded.  He stresses he was never  seen  for  OCD  problems
prior to 9/11 nor was he ever medicated for any OCD-related  problems.


The statement in the advisory “…documentation from the  November  2001
hospitalization for headache with  acute  quadriparesis  (neurological
impairment of all four extremities) concluded his symptoms were due to
a breakup with his girlfriend and the process of buying  a  house  and
made no mention of military activation or 9/11  as  a  cause  for  his
statements…” is incorrect and false.  He is clueless as to where  that
information was found as he had no problems with his girlfriend at the
time and the house-buying process went smoothly and with no  problems.
Another advisory statement indicating he  was  interested  in  leaving
active  duty  in  the  ANG  in  order  to  accept  another  employment
opportunity in the State of XXXXXXX is incorrect and he would like  to
be provided the source of that information, as he did not  write  that
statement.  He states he never asked for demobilization, even after he
became ill.

The advisory statement that “…he  reported  no  history  of  headaches
prior to September 11, 2001, however, medical documentation  indicates
he experienced headaches associated with a neck condition in 2000 that
prevented him from completing a period of active duty.  The  headaches
were intertwined  with  his  OCD  and  a  familial  predisposition  is
indicated by a reported family history of migraines in the father…” is
totally and completely false as he was never unable  to  complete  any
active duty training because of  headaches.   The  documentation  does
state, however, that medication for a bulged  disk  in  his  neck  was
responsible for the missed training as well as a regulation that would
not let him carry a weapon while on said  medication.   The  statement
about his father is also completely false has his father has never had
a problem with migraines, headaches, or any other illness.

In conclusion, the advisory presents obviously  incorrect  statements,
which definitely need to be reevaluated  and  assessed.   The  VA  has
service-connected his disability and he wonders why there is  so  much
confusion regarding his case.  He continues to suffer a life that  has
turned  into  a  nightmare  because  of  worsening  OCD  problems  and
migraines.  His squadron and his commanders treated him  unfairly  as,
while on medical hold, he was forced to clean bathrooms,  mop  floors,
and  perform  a  host  of  other   janitorial   duties   against   the
recommendations of his doctors.  He was told  he  was  faking  it  and
conducting a game.  He was harassed by calls to his  home,  presumably
to make sure he was there, and was actually followed; again presumably
to make sure he was going where he said he was  going.   He  lost  pay
from the military that he was entitled to for the duration of the time
it would have taken for the military  to  review  his  case,  he  lost
medical benefits when his  active  duty  orders  expired,  and  became
unemployed, all due to his becoming sick while on active duty.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is 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.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case  and
sympathize with his medical situation;  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.  In fact, to preclude an  error  or  injustice  and  as  an
exception to policy, SAFPC, after thoroughly analyzing the case  file,
inputs from the member (including his taped testimony), MEB, and  FPEB
and IPEB recommendations, concurred with the original MEB  finding  of
EPTS.  Additionally, a detailed review  of  the  record  by  the  BCMR
Medical  Consultant  validated  the  finding  of  the  original   MEB.
Therefore, in the absence of 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-
2003-02885 in Executive Session on 27 April 2004, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Mr. Terry L. Scott, Member
      Ms. Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Aug 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 1 Mar 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Mar 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Mar 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 2 Jun 04.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Jun 04, w/atchs.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair