RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02216
            INDEX CODE:  108:00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  20 Jan 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He  be  medically  retired  with  a  minimum  disability   rating   of
10 percent.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He contracted a tropical disease that he believes should have entitled
him to a medical retirement from the Air Force.

In support of his appeal,  the  applicant  provided  a  DD  Form  293,
Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal  from  the  Armed
Forces of the United States, an expanded statement, and extracts  from
his medical records.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 1 Jun 64 for  a  period
of four years in the grade of airman basic (E-1).

His service medical records indicate the applicant was seen in Jan  65
with stinging and burning after urination.  There was a discharge  and
a  history  of  a  contact  eight  days  previously.   Medication  was
prescribed.  He was  seen  in  Nov  66  after  complaining  of  slight
stinging on urination.  There was no discharge noted.  Medication  was
prescribed.  He was again seen in Jan 68 with penal discharge and  the
impression was urethritis.  Medication was prescribed and a  few  days
later it was felt that the condition was cured.  He was again seen  in
Feb 68 for what was referred to as recurrent  urethritis.   There  was
some indication that a gonorrhea smear was  positive.   Treatment  was
prescribed and he was later seen in Mar 68 with swollen node  in  left
groin and two small ulcers at the base of the  penal  gland.   It  was
noted he had been  on  medication  for  non-specific  discharge.   The
impression was urethritis.  The applicant’s  physical  examination  at
the time of discharge indicated he was  presently  being  treated  for
possible gonorrhea, but no complications were found and no sequela.

Applicant was honorably released from active  duty  in  the  grade  of
sergeant (E-4) on  31  May  68  under  the  provisions  of  AFR  39-10
(Expiration Term of Service).  He was  credited  with  four  years  of
active service.

On 3 Jun 68, he was admitted to a Veterans Hospital for 17 days  after
being diagnosed with lymphogranuloma venereum (a sexually  transmitted
disease), suspected.  He condition was subsequently considered  to  be
service-connected with a zero percent disability rating.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Medical Consultant recommended denial indicating that a review  of
the applicant’s service medical records  found  no  medical  condition
that interfered with performance of his military duties  or  warranted
his referral for evaluation in the  Air  Force  Disability  Evaluation
System.  The Military Disability  Evaluation  System,  established  to
maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law  under  Title  10,
only  offer  compensation  for  those  disease   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 and  not  based
on future possibilities.  The mere presence  of  a  medical  condition
does  not  qualify  a  member  for  disability  evaluation.   For   an
individual to be considered unfit for military service, there must  be
a medical condition that prevents performance of any work commensurate
with rank and experience or precludes assignment to  military  duties.
The applicant's  sexually  transmitted  disease  contracted  while  in
service did not render him unfit for duty.

According to  the  Medical  Consultant,  the  Department  of  Veterans
Affairs (DVA) operates under a separate set of  laws  (Title  38)  and
specifically addresses long-term  medical  care,  social  support  and
educational assistance.  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.  Title 38 takes into account the fact that a  person
can acquire physical conditions that, although not  unfitting  at  the
time of separation, may later  progress  in  severity  and  alter  the
individual's lifestyle and future employability. With  this  in  mind,
Title 38, U.S.C. which governs the DVA compensation system was written
to allow awarding compensation ratings for conditions  that  were  not
unfitting for military service at the time of separation. The  DVA  is
also empowered to reevaluate veterans periodically for the purpose  of
changing their disability awards if their level of  impairment  varies
over time. Thus the two systems represent a continuum of medical  care
and disability compensation that starts with entry on to  active  duty
and continues for the life of the veteran.  The  presence  of  medical
conditions that were not unfitting while in the service, were not  the
cause of separation or retirement, and that later progress in severity
causing disability resulting in service connected DVA compensation  is
not an unusual occurrence and is not a basis  to  retroactively  grant
military disability discharge or disability compensation.

The Medical Consultant believes the action  and  disposition  in  this
case were proper and equitable reflecting compliance  with  Air  Force
directives that implement the law, and that no change in  the  records
is warranted.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is  at  Exhibit
C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the  advisory  opinion  and  furnished  a  response
indicating the advisory did not  refer  to  the  tropical  disease  he
initially contracted.   He  was  not  diagnosed  with  lymphogranuloma
venereum until after his discharge from the Air  Force.   He  believes
his failure  to  receive  a  medical  board  prior  to  his  discharge
precluded a determination whether he was fit  for  continued  military
service.  If his  condition  was  serious  enough  to  result  in  his
hospitalization upon his separation, then it should have been  serious
enough for a medical hold.  Apparently, he was not fit for duty if  he
had to be hospitalized.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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.
However, we do not  find  it  sufficient  to  override  the  rationale
provided by the Medical Consultant.  No evidence  has  been  presented
which shows to our  satisfaction  the  applicant’s  medical  condition
rendered him unfit to perform the  duties  of  his  rank  and  office,
within the meaning of the law.  We noted  he  was  hospitalized  in  a
Veterans Hospital for a number of days shortly  after  his  separation
from the Air Force.  However, although his condition was considered to
be service-connected, he was given a zero percent  disability  rating.
In view of the foregoing, we agree  with  the  recommendation  of  the
Medical Consultant and adopt  his  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our
decision that the applicant  has  failed  to  sustain  his  burden  of
establishing  he  has  suffered  either  an  error  or  an  injustice.
Accordingly, 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-
2004-02216 in Executive Session on 26 Jul 05, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
      Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
      Ms. Marcia Jane Bachman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Aug 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 16 Jun 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jun 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 25 Jun 05, w/atch.




                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair