RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02083
                                       INDEX CODE:  108.05
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                      COUNSEL: NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  15 January 2008


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His diagnosis of  Diabetes  Mellitus  be  reflected  on  his  AF  Form  356,
Findings and Recommended  Disposition  of  USAF  Physical  Evaluation  Board
(PEB), dated 18 November 1959.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While he was on the Temporary Disability Retirement List  (TDRL),  following
his diagnosis of Tuberculosis, the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)
medical staff diagnosed him with Diabetes Mellitus Type II  and  erroneously
failed to notify the Air Force PEB.

In support of his application, he provides a personal statement,  copies  of
DVA medical records, TDRL documentation, and his DD Form 214,  Armed  Forces
of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 12 December 1959, the applicant was released from active duty and  placed
on the TDRL after  being  diagnosed  with  various  forms  of  tuberculosis,
pulmonary, active minimal, with tuberculosis of bone, left  second  rib  and
tuberculosis of lymph nodes mediastinal with  a  disability  rating  of  100
percent.  In May 1961, the applicant’s records were reexamined and  referred
to the Informal PEB for diagnosis of tuberculosis of  bone,  left  posterior
second rib and tuberculosis, pulmonary, arrested, minimal (Chest  x-ray  now
negative).  The applicant was retained on TDRL with a disability  rating  of
100 percent.  A medical document from the DVA contains  a  20  October  1961
entry indicating the applicant was diagnosed with Mild Diabetes Mellitus.

A reevaluation on 23 November 1962, found the  applicant’s  tuberculosis  to
be minimal, inactive for three years, and off  treatment  for  one  and  one
half years without residual lesion.  On 30 November 1962, the PEB found  the
applicant fit for military service and recommended his return to  duty.   On
2 December 1962, the applicant non-concurred  with  the  PEB  recommendation
and submitted a rebuttal  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  Personnel
Council (SAFPC).  On 21  January  1963,  the  SAFPC  reviewed  all  material
submitted in regards to the reexamination of the  applicant,  concluded  the
applicant was fit for military duty, and recommended he be removed from  the
TDRL.  The same day, the applicant signed an AF Form 188 indicating  he  did
not desire reenlistment in the Air  Force.   Special  Order  AB-1253,  dated
23 January 1963, removed the applicant from  the  TDRL  and  discharged  him
effective 31 January 1963, in accordance to Title  10,  United  States  Code
1210 and 1211.  The applicant served 7 years,  2  months,  and  22  days  of
active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial of the applicant’s  request.   DPPD  states  the
applicant’s diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus was never a condition  for  which
he was medically boarded by the Air Force.  His diagnosis  of  Diabetes  was
made in May  1961  while  being  seen  by  the  DVA.   After  reviewing  the
preponderance of evidence provided, they find no error occurred  during  the
applicant’s process through the disability evaluation system.

The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit B.

AFPC/JA  recommends  denying  the  applicant’s  request.   JA   states   the
applicant has not established any basis for relief.  The Air Force  properly
processed the applicant through the Informal PEB  and  appropriately  placed
him on the  TDRL.   When  a  Medical  Evaluation  Board  determined  he  was
subsequently fit for duty, he was afforded  counsel  and  proceeded  with  a
Formal PEB.  The documentation went to SAFPC identifying the conclusions  of
the PEB and the non-concurrence of the applicant.   The  applicant  did  not
make an issue  of  his  diabetes  diagnosis  and  ultimately  chose  not  to
reenlist in the Air Force.  The processing was proper and the applicant  was
lawfully discharged in accordance with statutory procedures.

The only arguable  error  is  that  the  PEB  was  not  made  aware  of  the
applicant’s condition of Diabetes when determining  whether  to  remove  him
from the TDRL.  All indications are that the  applicant  was  aware  of  his
diagnosis of Diabetes in or near October 1961.  When the PEB directly  asked
the applicant during the  Formal  PEB  in  November  1962  about  any  other
illnesses, he said he had none.  For whatever reason, the applicant did  not
inform the PEB of his diagnosis of Diabetes.  In any event, the  applicant’s
diagnosis of Diabetes occurred after he was  already  placed  on  the  TDRL.
There is no evidence that it  existed  while  he  was  on  active  duty  and
entitled  to  basic  pay.   Therefore,  the  fact  that  the  applicant  was
subsequently  diagnosed  with  Diabetes   would   not   have   changed   the
determination of the PEB with regards to his tuberculosis diagnosis.  It  is
JA’s opinion the applicant has demonstrated neither an error  nor  injustice
warranting his requested relief.

The JA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

His diagnosis  of  Diabetes  Mellitus  Type  II  is  service  connected  for
disability compensation, which is ratable at 100  percent.   Justice  denied
is justice delayed.  He does not have the power or the influence  to  change
tactical language; however, the DVA does.  They buried  his  claim  for  his
service-connected condition since 1961.  He is the victim  of  an  erroneous
injustice  and  for  several  decades  has  endured  nothing  but  senseless
expatiation of discrepancies, deception, and discouragement, to say  nothing
of  the  frustration  and  stress-creating  emotional  mental  pressure   of
dejection.  The DVA has access to every  applicable  Federal  law;  however,
ignored Air Force Instruction 36-3212, Chapter  1,  Section  1.5,  Delay  In
Processing.  By avoiding said instruction,  they  created  delays  down  the
line and kept him in the dark and unaware of his TDRL rights.  By  law,  the
mission of the TDRL Monitor is to act as a liaison between the  TDRL  member
and the PEB.  Veterans do not have the power to govern and  determine  their
entitlements.

The applicant’s rebuttal, with attachments, 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 an error or injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of this case and do not find  that
it supports a determination that  the  applicant  was  improperly  separated
from active duty in 1963.  We note the  applicant’s  diagnosis  of  diabetes
occurred after he was already placed on the TDRL.  There is no  evidence  to
support it existed while he was on active duty and entitled  to  basic  pay.
In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence that the  applicant  was
denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not  followed,
or appropriate standards were not applied, we agree  with  the  opinion  and
recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and  adopt
their rationale as our finding in this case.  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 31 October 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Martha J. Evans, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member
                 Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2006-02083:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Jul 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 2 Aug 06.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 29 Aug 06.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Sep 06.
      Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 27 Sep 06, w/atchs.




                                                   MARTHA J. EVANS
                                                   Panel Chair