RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03559
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: YES

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation  (Early  Separation  Program  -
Strength Reduction) be changed  to  a  disability  separation  (for
medical reasons).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

A post cranial surgery performed on active duty in  1985,  resulted
in the revocation of his Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) status
and ultimately disqualified him from performing duties as  a  Fuels
Maintenance Specialist.  Numerous conditions have been noted by the
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA); i.e.,  vision  loss,  hearing
loss, continued lower back pain, loss of balance  and  neurological
problems, resulting in  the  DVA  awarding  him  a  40%  disability
rating.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement;
and extracts of his military medical records and DVA records.

Applicant’s complete submission is Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Prior to the events under review, applicant served on  active  duty
from 5 Feb 81 to 5 Mar 84.  He reenlisted on 6 Mar 84 for a  period
of six years in the grade of airman first class.

While on active duty in Sep 85,  applicant  experienced  a  seizure
leading to the discovery of a 1.5  centimeter  mass  in  his  brain
which led  to  neurosurgery  and  diagnosis  of  the  lesion  as  a
hemotoma, a collection of blood due  to  an  episode  of  bleeding.
Evaluation of the applicant prior to surgery  included  a  cerebral
angiogram which  did  not  identify  the  cause  of  the  bleeding.
Following surgery the applicant was treated  with  Dilantin  (anti-
seizure medication).  Due to the seizure, surgery  and  requirement
for medication, he was disqualified from the PRP program and cross-
trained.

He was subsequently taken off medication, remained asymtomatic  and
continued to serve satisfactorily until his discharge.  At the time
of his discharge, there were no medical conditions  that  prevented
his continued general military service.

On  15  Jan  90,  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-3208, by reason of early separation program  -
strength reduction.  He served 8 years, 10 months, and 11  days  on
active duty.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant  reviewed  this  application   and
recommended denial.  Following applicant’s discharge, he  was  well
until Apr 94 when he experienced an approximately  two-week  period
of double vision and balance problems that recurred  in  a  similar
way in May 95.  The symptoms recurred in Sep  95,  this  time  with
additional symptoms including left arm numbness  and  headache  and
recurrent intracranial bleeding was identified.  Further evaluation
discovered   evidence   of   recurrent   presence    of    multiple
cerebrovascular  malformations  in  the   brain   and   retina,   a
developmental condition that  often  does  not  present  clinically
until affected individuals are in  their  30’s.   In  Apr  01,  the
Department of Veterans Affairs granted the applicant a 40 per  cent
service-connected disability compensation.

The Military Disability Evaluation  System  (DES),  established  to
maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can  by  law,  only  offer
compensation for those  diseases  or  injuries  which  specifically
rendered a member unfit for  continued  active  service,  were  the
cause for termination of their career, and then only for the degree
of impairment present at the time of separation.  The mere presence
of a medical condition does not qualify  a  member  for  disability
evaluation or disability benefits.

The DVA is chartered to offer compensation and care to all eligible
veterans for any service-connected disease or injury without regard
to whether it was unfitting for continued  military  service.   The
military service disability systems, operating under Title 10,  and
the  DVA  disability  systems,  operating  under  Title   38,   are
complementary systems not intended to  be  duplicative.   Operating
under different laws with a different purpose, determinations  made
by the Department of Defense (DoD) under Title 10 and the DVA under
Title 38 are not binding on the other.

At the time of his discharge, applicant’s medical  conditions  were
not unfitting for continued military service and  did  not  warrant
referral into the DES.  After discharge, he was well until Apr  94,
four years after discharge, and was subsequently diagnosed in  1995
with multiple  cavernous  angiomas  of  the  brain.   Although  the
applicant’s condition existed while he was on active duty,  it  did
not render him unfit for duty and was not the cause for termination


of his career.  Therefore, he was not eligible then, or now for the
Air  Force  disability  benefits  under  Title  10.    Action   and
disposition in  this  case  are  proper  and  equitable  reflecting
compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 8 Jun 04 for review and comment within  30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

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.  The applicant requests his reason for separation  of  “early
separation program - strength reduction” be changed to a disability
separation (for medical reasons).  However, we  found  no  evidence
which would lead us to believe that the applicant's  separation  or
reason for separation were in error or contrary  to  the  governing
Air Force regulations,  which  implement  the  law.   Additionally,
although the applicant experienced medical problems while on active
duty, we found no evidence that his medical conditions at the  time
of his discharge rendered him unfit for continued military service.
 The applicant’s case has undergone an  exhaustive  review  by  the
BCMR Medical Consultant  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  evidence
provided by the applicant that would overcome his assessment of the
case.  Therefore, we agree with his recommendation  and  adopt  the
rationale  expressed  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden  that  he  has  suffered
either an error or an injustice.   In  the  absence  of  persuasive
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  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 AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2003-03559 in Executive  Session  on  8  July  2004,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
      Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member
      Mr. Robert H. Altman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Oct 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 26 May 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Jun 04.




                                   GREGORY H. PETKOFF
                                   Panel Chair