RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00475
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  13 AUG 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation (Disability, Existed Prior  to  Service)
be changed to Service Connected Condition.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He never had  or  was  diagnosed  with  high  blood  pressure  (HPB)  before
entering military service.  His blood pressure was normal  at  the  Military
Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) Center.  He indicates his blood  pressure
is high as a result of military service with no preexisting  condition.   He
further indicates the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA)  has  awarded  him
10 percent service connected disability for HBP.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 26 January 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of six years.

The applicant’s Report of Medical  Examination,  dated  29  September  1999,
indicates at the time of the applicant’s enlistment, his blood pressure  was
normal.

In March 2000 during medical care for a viral  illness,  the  applicant  was
noted as having elevated blood pressure.

AF Form 618, Medical  Board  Report,  dated  10  June  2003,  indicates  the
applicant  was  diagnosed  with  severe   podapompholyx,   unresponsive   to
treatment and hypertension.  The board recommended the case be  referred  to
the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB)

AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of  USAF  IPEB,  dated  30
June 2003, indicates that the applicant was  diagnosed  with  Category  I  -
unfitting conditions which were compensable and ratable:  none; Category  II
-  conditions  that  could  have  been  unfitting  but  were  not  currently
compensable  or  ratable:   podapompholyx,  unresponsive  to  treatment  and
hypertension; Category III - conditions that were not  separately  unfitting
and not compensable or ratable:  overweight.  Additional  findings  included
the applicant was unfit because of physical disability  and  the  degree  of
impairment was permanent.  The recommended disposition  indicated  discharge
Under Other Than Chapter 61, 10 U.S.C.  Existed  Prior  to  Service  (EPTS).
The report further indicated the applicant’s medical condition,  which  EPTS
and had not  been  permanently  aggravated  through  military  service,  was
incompatible with the rigors  of  military  service.   The  IPEB  noted  the
applicant’s condition began in basic training.  The Board  opined  that  the
180-day  rule  applied  and  found  the  applicant  unfit  and   recommended
discharge under the provisions other than Chapter 61, Title 10, USC.

AF Form 1180, Action on Physical Evaluation Board Findings  and  Recommended
Disposition, dated 11 July 2003, indicates the  applicant  agreed  with  the
findings and recommended disposition  of  the  PEB  and  understood  he  was
waiving his right to a Formal PEB hearing.

On 11 July 2003, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council  indicates
the Secretary of the Air Force directed  the  applicant  be  separated  from
active service for physical disability due to a condition  that  EPTS.   The
applicant was not entitled to any benefits under the provisions  of  Chapter
61, Title 10, U.S.C.

On 16 September 2003, the applicant was honorably discharged  in  the  grade
of senior airman under the provisions of AFI  36-3208  -  Disability,  EPTS.
He served 3 years, 7 months, and 21 days of total active duty service.

A Department of Veterans Affairs  (DVA)  Rating  Decision,  dated  18 August
2004, indicates items subject to compensation reflects right  ankle  strain,
symptomatic, service connected, Gulf  War,  incurred,  10  percent  from  17
September 2003; hypertension, service  connected,  Gulf  War,  incurred,  10
percent  from  27 September  2003;  eczema,  hands  and  feet,  symptomatic,
service connected, Gulf War, incurred, 10 percent from  17  September  2003;
combined evaluation  for  compensation:   30  percent.   Items  not  service
connected/not  subject  to  compensation  -   right   shoulder   impingement
syndrome, hearing loss (hearing normal for VA  purposes,  tinnitus,  chronic
bronchitis - no diagnosis, obstructive sleep apnea.

A Department of Veterans Affairs Rating Decision,  dated  20 December  2004,
indicates  the  applicant  was  diagnosed  with   Hypertension   -   service
connected, Gulf War Incurred 10 percent  from  17  September  2003;  Eczema,
hands and feet, symptomatic service connected Gulf War, Incurred 10  percent
from 17 September 2003; S/P Tenosynovectomy of the Peroneal  Tendons,  Right
Ankle (previously rated  as  right  ankle  strain,  symptomatic)  -  service
connected Gulf War, Incurred -  10  percent  from  17  September  2003,  100
percent from 25 August 2004 (38 CFR 4.30), 10 percent from  1 October  2004.
A  combined  evaluation  for  compensation  indicates  30  percent  from  17
September 2003, 100 percent from 25  August  2004  and  30  percent  from  1
October 2004.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommended denial  indicating  the  applicant
manifested two chronic medical conditions within six  weeks  of  entry  onto
active duty while in basic  training:   pompholyx/eczema  of  the  feet  and
essential hypertension (high blood pressure).  He subsequently underwent  an
MEB when the skin condition worsened interfering with military duty and  was
unresponsive to treatment.  The PEB considered both medical  conditions  and
found the skin condition but not the hypertension  unfitting  for  continued
military service.  The  PEB  concluded  the  applicant’s  unfitting  medical
condition existed prior to service based on  manifestation  of  symptoms  so
soon after entry onto active duty that the condition could  not  have  begun
in so short a period of time.  Although the  applicant’s  hypertension  also
manifested shortly after entry onto active duty and would be  considered  as
existing prior to service based on the same  principle,  the  condition  was
not determined to be unfitting.  The applicant agreed with the findings  and
recommendations of the PEB.

The applicant’s chronic skin disease manifested less  than  one  week  after
entry onto active duty and is of such a chronic nature  that  it  could  not
have developed in so short a period of time.  The subsequent course  of  the
skin disease was consistent with the natural course  of  the  condition  and
would have progressed regardless of military service.

Although the applicant argues that  the  evidence  of  the  service  medical
record and submitted documentation overcomes the presumption that  his  high
blood pressure identified so soon  after  entry  onto  active  duty  existed
prior to service, the issue is rendered hypothetical by the  fact  that  his
high blood pressure was not considered unfitting at the time  of  evaluation
in  the  disability  system.   In  order  to  be  considered   ratable   and
compensable, the condition must be  unfitting.   In  order  for  high  blood
pressure  to  be  considered  potentially  unfitting  the  diastolic   blood
pressure must be consistently greater  than  110 (mmHg)  following  adequate
therapy, or manifest end organ damage (to eyes, brain,  heart  or  kidneys),
or require a complex multi-medication regimen that  requires  an  inordinate
amount  of  medical  supervision  (AFI  48-123,  paragraph  A2.7.2.).    The
applicant’s high  blood  pressure  was  not  this  high  even  when  off  of
medications, had not  caused  end  organ  damage  and  did  not  require  an
inordinate amount medical management.   High  blood  pressure  was  not  the
reason the applicant was separated.

Even if the Board were to  grant  the  applicant’s  request,  any  resulting
disability severance pay (10 percent rating) would be deducted  from  future
DVA disability compensation and provide no financial  or  other  benefit  to
the applicant.

Action and disposition in this case  are  proper  and  equitable  reflecting
compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 16 February 2006, a copy of the Air Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As of this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an  error  or  injustice.   After  reviewing  the  evidence  of
record, we are convinced the applicant’s separation from the Air  Force  was
in accordance with Air  Force  policy.   His  contentions  are  duly  noted;
however, in our opinion,  the  detailed  comments  provided  by  the  AFBCMR
Medical Consultant adequately address these allegations.  Therefore, we  are
in agreement with the comments and recommendation of the Medical  Consultant
and adopt his rationale as the basis for our  decision  that  the  applicant
has not been the victim of either an error or injustice.   In  view  of  the
above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling
basis upon which to recommend favorable action on this application.


_________________________________________________________________




THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or an injustice; the application was denied without  a
personal appearance; and 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-2005-
00475 in Executive Session on 23 March 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:


                 Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
                 Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 February 2005, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated
                 15 February 2006.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 February 2006, w/atch.




                       MICHAEL J. MAGLIO
                       Panel Chair