RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01216
                       INDEX CODE:  115.02
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  17 February 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated to active duty in the grade of senior airman, awarded
all back pay and allowances, and credited with active duty time  since
his discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was unfairly discharged  from  the  Air  Force  due  to  an  unfair
Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and an inaccurate  medical  evaluation
report.

In support of his appeal, the applicant includes a personal statement,
documentation pertaining to the  evaluation  and  disposition  of  his
medical condition,  and  two  letters  of  support.   The  applicant’s
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 3 June 1999, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the
age of 18 in the grade of airman basic  (E-1)  for  a  period  of  six
years.  He was trained as a Security Forces Journeyman.  The applicant
was progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of  senior  airman  (E-4)
effective and with a date of rank of 16 March 2002.  He received three
performance evaluations between  the  period  of  3 June  1999  and  2
February 2003, with promotion recommendations of 3, 5, and 4.

On 17 May 2001, the applicant underwent surgery to  remove  his  colon
(large intestine) due to a diagnosis of Familial Adenomatous Polyposis
syndrome, a genetic syndrome with essentially a 100 percent  risk  for
the  development  for  colon  cancer.   On  25  September  2001,   the
requirement for the applicant to use Lomotil, a narcotic anti-diarrhea
agent, resulted in his permanent decertification  from  the  Personnel
Reliability Program (PRP) and prevented him from being able to carry a
weapon.  According to  a  Medical  Evaluation  Board  (MEB)  narrative
summary, dated 28 December 2002, the applicant was able to control his
bowels with diet alone by July 2002.  In September 2002,  he  deployed
with his unit, but experienced recurrent diarrhea  in  the  deployment
location requiring the use of Lomotil.   The  applicant  was  returned
back to his home base because he could not be utilized as  a  security
forces member.  This incident triggered the initiation of an MEB.  Air
Force Instruction 48-123, paragraph A2.9.15, dictates a mandatory  MEB
on any person diagnosed with Familial Polyposis.

On 6 January 2003, the  MEB  diagnosed  the  applicant  with  Familial
Polyposis/Chronic Diarrhea and found his condition was incurred  while
entitled to basic pay, did not exist prior to  service,  and  was  not
permanently aggravated by service.  The MEB referred  the  applicant’s
case to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board.   On  9 January  2003,
his  commander  submitted  a  memorandum  to  the  Air  Force  Medical
Standards Branch, supporting the applicant’s retention in service  and
cross-training him into a career  field  that  has  a  limited  or  no
deployment commitment.

On 3 February 2003, the IPEB diagnosed  the  applicant  with  Familial
Polyposis  associated  with  chronic  diarrhea  status  post   partial
colectomy, and found his condition existed  prior  to  service  (EPTS)
without service aggravation.  The IPEB noted the applicant’s condition
is familial/genetic, even though it did not manifest prior to service.
 The IPEB found the applicant unfit because of physical disability and
recommended discharge under provisions other than  Chapter  61,  Title
10, United States Code (U.S.C.).  On 4 February  2003,  the  applicant
submitted his disagreement with the IPEB’s  findings  and  demanded  a
formal hearing of his case.

On 21 March 2003, the Formal Physical Evaluation  Board  (FPEB)  found
the testimony and medical evidence supported the findings of the  IPEB
and agreed with the IPEB’s recommendation  for  discharge.   The  FPEB
stated the applicant’s condition was incompatible with the  long  term
rigors of the military service and stated they could not ascertain any
permanent service  aggravation.   On  21  March  2003,  the  applicant
submitted his disagreement with the FPEB findings and  recommendations
and expressed his desire to submit an appeal.  On 1  April  2003,  the
applicant submitted a letter reversing  his  decision  to  appeal  and
stated it was in his best interest to accept the FPEB’s decision.

On 7 April 2003, officials within the office of the Secretary  of  the
Air Force determined the applicant was physically unfit for  continued
military service due to a physical disability which existed  prior  to
military service and directed discharge without disability benefits.

The applicant was honorably discharged effective 23 May 2003 under the
provisions of AFI 36-3208 with a reentry code 2Q (personnel  medically
retired or discharged) and  a  separation  code  of  JFM  (disability,
existed prior to service).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no  change  in  the
applicant’s records is warranted.  The BCMR Medical Consultant  states
the fact the applicant’s bowels are currently controlled with diet and
a stable work environment does not  indicate  that  his  condition  is
different than previously or from  others  without  a  colon  in  whom
diarrhea will occur when exposed to the demands  of  military  service
including deployments requiring changing work schedules,  inconsistent
diets, or harsh climates requiring marked  changes  in  fluid  intake.
The preponderance of the evidence shows the applicant’s condition  was
incompatible  with  continued  military  service  in  his  Air   Force
specialty or for a long  term  career  in  other  career  fields,  the
majority of which are also subject to deployments.   It  is  the  BCMR
Medical Consultant’s opinion that the applicant’s  case  was  properly
evaluated and received full consideration under the provisions of  AFI
36-3212, the finding of unfit was consistent with policy and practice,
and no error or injustice occurred in this  case.   The  BCMR  Medical
Consultant states that action and disposition in this case are  proper
and reflect compliance with Air Force directives which  implement  the
law.  The BCMR Medical Consultant’s 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 6
June 2005 for review and response 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.   We  note  the  applicant’s
assertion that he was unfairly discharged due to  an  unfair  PEB  and
inaccurate medical evaluation report; however, according  to  the  Air
Force office of primary  responsibility,  his  medical  condition  was
disqualifying for military duty then, as it is now.  Neither does  the
record reveal nor has the applicant provided any evidence  that  would
lead us to believe that he was physically fit within  the  meaning  of
the governing regulation, which implements the law, to return  him  to
active service.  We note that the Service Secretaries are charged with
maintaining  a  fit  and  vital  force.   Medical  standards  ensuring
accession of healthy members with a low risk for medical problems that
may interfere with performance of military duties have been  developed
over time  based  on  decades  of  experience  and  are  appropriately
updated.  Based on the above comments, 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.
Accordingly, the applicant’s request is not favorably considered.

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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 10 August 2005, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

            Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
            Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
            Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01216:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jun 04, with attachments.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 2 Jun 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Jun 05.




                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair