RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00805
            INDEX CODE:  108.07
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  Not Indicated

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His service-connected  myalgic  myopathy  and  compressive  neuropathies  be
reclassified as due to peripheral neuropathy due to  Agent  Orange  exposure
and that his skin disorders, be assessed  as  combat  related  in  order  to
qualify for compensation  under  the  Combat  Related  Special  Compensation
(CRSC) Act.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of  his  retirement  the  Agent  Orange  program  had  not  been
researched or developed as it  is  now.   He  received  a  letter  from  the
Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) stating his  abnormality  may  or  may
not be related to herbicide exposure.  If the research had been  present  it
may  not  have  been  used  as  a  scapegoat.   Agent  Orange  exposure  and
peripheral neuropathy would help to explain some of his  conditions  through
the autonomic nervous system.  Peripheral neuropathy  is  a  nervous  system
condition  that  causes  numbness,  tingling,   and   muscle   weakness   by
involvement of the nerves and now it  is  mixed  with  Agent  Orange/Dioxin,
which is causing his CPK count to be well above normal.

In  support  of  his  request,  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,
documentation  associated  with  his  CRSC  application,  and  documentation
extracted  from  his  medical  records.   His  complete   submission,   with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air  Force  on  7
Sep 67.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of  technical  sergeant,
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank  of  1  Oct  82.
He served as an Administrative Technician.  He served in Vietnam from 7  Sep
69 to 3 Jun 70.  He was referred to a Medical Evaluation  Board  on  11  Dec
86.  He was found fit for continued military service with  a  recommendation
of a waiver for aerobics.  He voluntary retired from the  Air  Force  on  30
Sep 87, having served 20 years and 24 days on active duty.
Current DVA records reflect a combined compensable rating of  100%  for  his
unfitting conditions.

His CRSC application was disapproved on 9 Feb 04 based upon  the  fact  that
his service-connected medical conditions were determined not to  be  combat-
related.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends  denial.   DPPD  states  his  records  reflect  he  was
treated  for  myalgic  myopathy  of  unknown  origin  affecting  his   legs,
shoulders, and arms.  It is not considered to be  related  to  combat  acts,
instrumentality of war, due to hazardous service, or  presumptive  of  Agent
Orange.  There is no record of any particular injury  he  encountered,  just
repetitive trauma from painful swelling of  multiple  muscles  beginning  in
the left lower extremity and from the spreading to the upper extremities  of
both arms and shoulders.  He had recurrent  pain  and  cramping  of  muscles
brought on by exertion and based on strength testing  the  likely  component
of his fatigue was brought on by physical activity.   The  only  abnormality
noted for Agent Orange was an  elevated  creatine  kinase.   He  was  denied
connection for Agent Orange.  He feels that because his condition was of  an
unknown  origin  it  was  diagnosed  incorrectly  and  instead   should   be
considered as peripheral neuropathy to justify eligibility for CRSC.   There
is no documentation that his myalgic  myopathy  is  in  direct  relation  to
peripheral neuropathy and the preponderance of  evidence  does  not  justify
the change in his medical records.  The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that his records show  he  was  treated  for  both  myalgic
myopathy of  unknown  origin  and  peripheral  neuropathy.   His  peripheral
neuropathy was over  shadowed  by  the  myalgic  myopathy.   The  letter  he
received from the DVA in 1987 identifies  an  abnormality  in  his  creatine
kinase and elevated cholesterol levels and denies him connection  for  Agent
Orange.  The letter also indicated that there is  considerable  research  in
progress and no conclusion on scientific evidence was available.   In  1994,
he received a brief from the DVA stating that his peripheral neuropathy  was
added to the  list  of  conditions  related  to  Agent  Orange.   Given  the
definition of peripheral neuropathy, his  medical  records  show  that  from
1971 until the present he has displayed  the  symptoms.   The  Agent  Orange
brief  of  2003  contains  a  collection  of  skin  problem  (chloracne)  as
presumptive.  This too is something he has  been  treated  for  since  1971.
His complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
states he was diagnosed in 1986 with an unclassified myopathy manifested  by
muscle  cramping,  pain,  and  weakness.   Extensive  neurologic  evaluation
demonstrated his condition was a primary disease of muscle and  not  due  to
peripheral neuropathy.  Subsequent  evaluations  have  concluded  he  has  a
metabolic  myopathy,  a  disease  of  muscle,  not  of  nerves.   Neurologic
evaluations have documented mechanical compression  of  the  nerves  of  the
wrist  (carpal  tunnel  syndrome)  and  the  neck  (radiculopathy)  and  not
peripheral neuropathy.  This is not a toxic peripheral  neuropathy  such  as
may be seen  with  dioxin  or  other  toxin  exposure.   He  submits  a  DVA
neurology medical record dated over 30 years  since  his  tour  of  duty  in
Vietnam that lists peripheral neuropathy as  a  provisional  diagnosis.   An
electromyogram performed in 2002  confirmed  his  previous  diagnosis  of  a
compressive neuropathy at the  wrist  and  did  not  diagnose  a  peripheral
neuropathy.  He is not currently rated or being compensated by the  DVA  for
peripheral neuropathy.  His service and DVA medical records contain  entries
for various skin diseases, none of which are related to chloracne.   He  has
been  granted  DVA  compensation  for  Athletes  foot  and  condyloma  (skin
infection), both are rated at 0%.

The Medical Consultant Evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy  of  the  additional  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 14 Jan 05 for review and comment within 30 days.   As  of  this
date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________


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.  After a thorough review of  the  available
evidence of record, we are not persuaded that a change  to  the  applicant's
records is warranted.  His contentions are duly noted;  however  we  do  not
find his  assertions  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override  the  rationale
provided by the Air Force.   Further,  is  our  opinion  that  the  service-
connected medical conditions the applicant believes are combat-related  were
not incurred as the direct  result  of  armed  conflict,  while  engaged  in
hazardous service, in the performance of duty  under  conditions  simulating
war, or through an instrumentality of war, and  therefore,  do  not  qualify
for compensation under  the  CRSC  Act.   Accordingly,  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
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-2004-
00805 in Executive Session on 6 Apr 05, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
      Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Feb 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 7 May 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 May 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Jun 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 13 Jan 05.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 14 Jan 05.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair