RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02737
            INDEX NUMBER:  115.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be returned to flight status with all  flight  pay  and  navigator
bonuses effective 12 Dec 01.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The aeromedical summary prepared by his flight surgeon requesting  he
be permanently grounded  is  inaccurate  and  false.   The  applicant
provides several excerpts from the summary along with attachments  he
claims prove them  to  be  inaccurate  and  false.   The  applicant’s
comments are summarized below:

        A.  The applicant denies he said  he  was  addicted  to  pain
medication and said instead that he had been treated  for  a  chronic
relapsing case of herpes zoster and  his  body  had  become  narcotic
tolerant, which is not defined as drug abuse.

        B.  He denies his  flight  surgeon  at  McGuire  AFB  stopped
prescribing him narcotics because he suspected  he  was  addicted  to
painkillers and, in fact, continued to  prescribe  him  percocet  and
increased the frequency.  He did not go to  civilian  doctors  in  an
attempt to continue receiving narcotics, but was referred because the
flight surgeons could not control his recurring herpes zoster.

        C.  When he changed assignments in Jun  2000,  his  condition
continued and the flight surgeons at this base continued to prescribe
him pain medication.  He denies the flight surgeons referred  him  to
aerospace psychology and base legal because they were  suspicious  of
his drug use.  Applicant references an attached e-mail that  supports
the fact he was returned to flying status initially on 12 Mar 01  and
removed again on 3 Apr 01, but advised if he took his  medication  as
prescribed, he would be returned to flying status.

        D.  He denies he  stated  to  an  aerospace  psychiatrist  he
altered a prescription, rather that it was alleged he had  done  this
and it was under investigation.  He references a court  order,  which
shows the charges against him were  dropped  on  5  Dec  02  and  his
records ordered expunged.  If the flight surgeon had waited to  write
the summary, he does not believe he would have been grounded.

        E.  Applicant references a  letter  from  the  Department  of
Pharmacy at Virginia Commonwealth University he contends refutes  the
aerospace summary.

Applicant further discusses the aerospace summary and asks  a  series
of hypothetical “what-if” questions, which  he  asserts  the  answers
will show he did not abuse drugs and should not have been grounded.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on active duty  in  the  grade  of
major.  In 1997 while serving as a navigator, the applicant developed
a medical condition, which resulted in his flight surgeon, in Apr 98,
requesting a waiver for the applicant to take  antiviral  medication.
On 12 Dec 01, the applicant was disqualified from flying by  the  Air
Combat Command Surgeon due to a diagnosis of narcotic abuse based  on
an aeromedical summary prepared by his attending  flight  surgeon  at
the time.

Additional  facts  pertinent  to  this  case  are  contained  in  the
additional  Air  Force  evaluation  prepared  by  the  BCMR   Medical
Consultant found at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ  USAF/XOOT  determined  the  applicant’s  application  should   be
forwarded to AFMSA/SGPA for review of the applicant’s request.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFMSA/SGPA states the applicant’s use of legally prescribed drugs  is
factual and that narcotic usage  while  flying  poses  a  significant
safety of flight issue due to the  potential  for  mental  impairment
from  medication  side  effects.   Although  the  applicant  mentions
rehabilitation in Aug 01, his package lacks sufficient  documentation
to show his current health status.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

SAF/MRBR forwarded the two evaluations above to the applicant  on  21
Sep 04.  They  advised  the  applicant  the  evaluation  prepared  by
AFMSA/SGPA  noted   the   applicant’s   package   lacked   sufficient
documentation to show his current  health  status.   The  applicant’s
case was closed and he was advised to furnish current medical history
to AFMSA/SGPA for their determination on his case.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the two evaluations and  the  letter  from
SAF/MRBR.  The applicant  stated  his  response  provides  sufficient
documentation with corroborating evidence  showing  what  his  health
status was on 12 Dec 01.  The applicant opines this is what should be
required to grant his request since the letter used to disqualify him
was dated 12 Dec 01.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFMSA/SGPA provided an  additional  evaluation  in  response  to  the
applicant’s prior response.  They recommend denial of the applicant’s
request.  Records reveal on 12 Dec 01  the  applicant  was  medically
disqualified by ACC/SG as  requested  by  his  flight  surgeon.   The
flight surgeon’s decision was based on his perception  the  applicant
crossed the line between addiction and true abuse.  They note whether
it was drug use or abuse, the decision to  disqualify  the  applicant
was appropriate.   Previously,  from  Nov  97  through  Mar  01,  the
applicant was recurrently placed on  Duties  Not  to  Include  Flying
(DNIF) status (17 occasions for a total of 597  days).   During  this
same  period,  the  applicant  received  significant  quantities   of
narcotic medications, antidepressants used  in  pain  management  and
other medications not waived for flying status.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit G.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the BCMR Medical Consultant provided
an evaluation of the applicant’s appeal.  He too recommends denial of
the applicant’s request.

The applicant was disqualified from flying in Dec 01 four years after
onset of recurrent shingles accompanied by pain treated with narcotic
analgesics.  Although his disqualification was based primarily on his
misuse or abuse of narcotic analgesics, the prolonged  and  recurrent
nature of the condition and treatment  with  numerous  non-waiverable
medications resulting in frequent groundings,  also  fully  justified
his disqualification from flying duties.  The  applicant  submits  no
substantive  evidence  to  support  his  assertion  the  12  Dec   01
aeromedical summary contained numerous inaccuracies that resulted  in
unjust  disqualification  from  flying  status.   The  BCMR   Medical
Consultant further notes that  the  procedures  for  disqualifying  a
member from flying cannot be as a result of arbitrary  or  capricious
actions of a single flight surgeon.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

A copy of  the  additional  evaluation  prepared  by  AFMSA/SGPA  was
forwarded to the applicant on 29 Oct 04 for review and comment within
30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.

A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation prepared  by  the  BCMR
Medical Consultant was forwarded to the applicant on 30  Nov  04  for
review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not  been
received.

_________________________________________________________________
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;
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.   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 Docket Number  BC-2004-
02737 in Executive Session on 11 January 2005, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
      Mr. Patrick C. Dougherty, Member
      Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Aug 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, HQ USAF/XOOT, dated 7 Sep 04.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFMSA/SGPA, dated 15 Sep 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Sep 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Oct 04.
    Exhibit G.  Memorandum, AFMSA/SGPA, dated 20 Oct 04.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 04.
    Exhibit I.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant,
                dated 29 Nov 04.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Nov 04.





                                   GREGORY H. PETKOFF
                                   Panel Chair