RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

      IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00280
            INDEX CODE: 110.00
      XXXXXXX                     COUNSEL:  NONE

                                   HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 1 AUGUST 2007

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation (hardship)  be  changed  to  a  medical
reason.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He contracted the hepatitis C virus while working in the operating room  in
Wiesbaden from 1976-1979.  When he was discharged, hepatitis C did not have
a name, it was called non-A and non-B. He is now under the  care  of  a  GI
doctor and has grade four cirrhosis.  He underwent six months of Interferon
treatment but his hepatitis did not respond, hence the reason he is seeking
help.  Although his condition was not diagnosed  until  2005,  his  records
show elevated liver enzymes since 1979.  He has the genotype two  which  is
more common to Europe than to  the  United  States.   He  believes  if  his
condition had had a name in 1988, he  would  have  been  medically  retired
rather than honorably discharged with no benefits,

In support of his request, the applicants submit  copies  of  documentation
extracted from his medical records.

His complete submission, with attachments is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 17 December 1975  in  the  grade  on
airman basic (E-1).  He submitted a request to be discharged  for  hardship
reasons.  On 3 November 1988 the request was  approved  by  the  Air  Force
Personnel Center.  On 7 November 1988 he was discharged  in  the  grade  of
technical  sergeant  with  service  characterized  as  honorable.   He  was
assigned reenlistment eligibility code  of  “4A”  which  denotes  “hardship
reasons”.

He served a total of 12 years, 10 months and 21 days on active duty.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
states the medical records show the applicant had no clinical  symptoms  or
impairment of liver functions from his disease and continued to perform his
military duties  in  an  exemplary  manner.  Although  he  manifested  mild
elevations of liver enzymes,  he  did  not  manifest  impairment  of  liver
function.  Under the polices and medical standards in force at the time  of
his separation (as well as current standards), his  chronic  hepatitis  did
not warrant referral for disability  evaluation,  a  finding  of  unfit  or
disability discharge.  Although a review of the medical  records  show  the
applicant was diagnosed  with  chronic  hepatitis  while  in  service  that
existed at least since 1979.   The  applicant  showed  elevation  of  liver
enzymes while in service that reflected active hepatitis but no  impairment
of function or findings of cirrhosis.   While  these  conditions  may  have
later become unfitting with passage  of  time  if  the  applicant  had  not
separated, this is not a basis to retroactively grant disability  benefits.
Actions and disposition in these cases are proper and equitable  reflecting
compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law,  subsequently,
the Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the  records  is
warranted.

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He is not seeking retroactive medical disability payments  or  compensation
from his discharge in 1988, he is seeking help for the rest  of  his  life.
He still contends he was infected with  the  Hepatitis  C  virus  while  on
active duty.  He underwent Interferon treatment  for  six  months  and  the
Hepatitis C returned much to his dismay.   He  completed  another  48  week
Interferon treatment period this past January and has to wait three  months
for further blood  work  to  see  if  the  Hepatitis  C  is  in  remission.
Nevertheless, he  still  has  advanced  cirrhosis  and  believes  even  the
complete eradication of the Hepatitis C virus will not alter his situation.
 He is having a CAT scan in March to determine the presence or  absence  of
esophageal varices and to see if cancer has developed.  Also, the letter he
received does not mention the liver biopsy he had while stationed  at  Fort
Sam Houston,  Texas.   He  states  the  result  was  “Piecemeal  Necrosis”.
Although he still works 62 hours per week, he is tired most  of  the  time;
however, if he works less, he won’t be able to support himself.   His  main
concern is when he does go symptomatic and is unable to work; he will  lose
his medical benefits which enables him to fight the disease.  The applicant
also lists the names, addresses and phone number of his  Gastroenterologist
and Primary Care Physicians.

The complete response is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

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 warranting a  change  of  his  honorable
discharge to a medical discharge.  Applicant’s contentions are duly  noted;
however, the Board agrees with the opinions and recommendation of the  BCMR
Medical Consultant  and  adopts  his  rationale  as  the  basis  for  their
conclusion that the applicant has not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.  While the applicants records confirms the presence of a medical
condition, the preponderance of the evidence of record  does  not  indicate
his condition was unfitting for continued military service at the time  the
applicant decided to voluntary separate.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, the Board finds 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  BC-2006-00280  in  Executive
Session on 28 Mar 07, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Panel Chair
                 Ms.  Debra K. Walker, Member
                 Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member


The following documentary evidence pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2006-
00280 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Jan 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultantr, dated 6 Feb 07.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/AFBCMR, dated 16 Feb 07.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Feb 07.




                                   JAY H. JORDAN
                                   Panel Chair





                         DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
                                WASHINGTON DC



[pic]

Office Of The Assistant Secretary

AFBCMR
1535 Command Dr, EE Wing, 3rd Flr
Andrews AFB MD 20762-7002

XXXXXXXr.
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX

XXXXXXX

      Reference your application, AFBCMR BC-2006-00280 submitted under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603 (Section 1552, 10 USC).

      After careful consideration of your application and military records,
a majority of the board determined that the evidence you presented did not
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  The Secretary’s
designee accepted the recommendation of the Board majority.  Accordingly,
your application was denied.

      You have the right to submit newly discovered relevant evidence for
consideration by the Board.  In the absence of such additional evidence, a
further review of your application is not possible.

      BY DIRECTION OF THE PANEL CHAIR





                                                       GREGORY E.
JOHNSON
                                                             Chief
Examiner
                                                 Air Force Board
for Correction
                                                       of Military
Records

2 Attachments:
Record of Board Proceedings