RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00429
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  10 AUGUST 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be given an additional medical diagnosis of musculoskeletal injuries  and
depression, and an increased disability rating.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The rating he was given upon his medical discharge is unjust.  He was  rated
at 10 percent by the Air Force for migraines and/or head injury.  He  should
have been rated for  the  other  injuries  (neck  and  back)  that  he  also
sustained in the accident since they were also addressed during  his  active
duty military career.  Since  his  discharge  his  medical  conditions  have
worsened to the point that he  now  suffers  from  major  depression.   This
condition was diagnosed by a Veteran’s Administration (VA) psychiatrist  who
concluded that the condition stemmed from having been in chronic pain  (i.e.
head, neck, and back) for a prolonged period of time.

He was misinformed  by  his  appointed  Physical  Evaluation  Board  Liaison
Officer (PEBLO), on how to dispute the Air Force’s rating.  He was  told  by
his PEBLO that he had to fight his 10 percent rating,  by  way  of  the  VA.
The VA told him that he should have disputed the  10  percent  rating  while
still on active duty.

In support of his request, applicant provided a  copy  of  his      DD  Form
214, and various military and VA records.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 17 Dec 92.  On 16  Jun
94, applicant was involved in a single vehicle accident on an  official  “Do
it Yourself” move.  He sustained scalp and knee lacerations and was  treated
and released from a local civilian emergency room.  About six  months  after
the accident he began to develop very painful migraines as well as back  and
neck pain and spasms.

Due to applicant’s continuing headaches, a Medical  Evaluation  Board  (MEB)
was initiated.  The applicant’s commander submitted  a  “Letter  of  Impact”
for the board, in which he observed that  “[applicant’s]  medical  condition
is aggravated by excessive noise and exposure  to  sunlight,  which  has  an
adverse impact on his  ability  to  perform  his  duties.”   In  applicant’s
letter to the MEB, he indicates that he was suffering  from  neck  and  back
spasms, numbness, weakness on the left side  of  his  body  and  “at  times”
unbearable migraines, and that his job  performance  has  been  affected  by
these symptoms.  The MEB assessed the applicant as not  worldwide  qualified
due to “chronic daily headaches,” and recommended a medical discharge.   The
MEB conducted on 17 Mar 99 referred the applicant’s case to the PEB.  On  18
May 99, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB)  found  the  applicant
unfit for further  military  service  due  to  “status  post  motor  vehicle
accident 1994 with residuals, chronic headaches,” and recommended  discharge
with severance pay with a 10 percent compensable rating.  On 25 May 99,  the
applicant signed the AF Form  1180,  Action  on  Physical  Evaluation  Board
Findings and Recommended Disposition,  indicating  his  agreement  with  the
findings and recommended disposition of the PEB and waiving the right  to  a
formal PEB hearing.  The applicant was disability discharged with  severance
pay on 2 Aug 99 due to chronic headaches after serving 6  years,  6  months,
and 16 days on active duty.

Additional facts relevant to the  applicant’s  case  are  contained  in  the
evaluation prepared by the BCMR Medical Consultant at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant  is  of  the  opinion  that  no  change  in  the
applicant’s  records  is  warranted.     The  applicant  developed   chronic
headaches and  episodic  neck/back  complaints  while  on  active  duty  and
following a Line of Duty  “Yes”  motor  vehicle  accident.   These  symptoms
worsened to the degree that they interfered with his  military  duties,  and
when the headaches were unresponsive to treatment he  was  found  unfit  and
discharged with severance pay.

The applicant requests that his neck and back symptoms be  included  in  the
IPEB’s deliberation.  A recommendation by an MEB for referral to an IPEB  is
based only on medical findings indicative of unfitness  for  military  duty.
The unfitting medical condition described in the applicant’s MEB  narrative,
and supported by all the antecedent  medical  record  entries,  was  chronic
headaches.   While  cervical  symptoms  may  have  been  a   cause   of   or
contributory to the headaches, they  were  not  described  anywhere  in  the
available medical records or by the applicant’s commander  as  significantly
independently  impacting  work  performance,  and  functional   exams   were
universally recorded as normal.  A rating of 10  percent  is  warranted  for
migraines with  “characteristic  prostrating  attacks  averaging  one  in  2
months over last several months.”  Prostrating, the description of  severity
relating to unfitness, “means that the service member must stop what  he  or
she is doing  and  seek  medical  attention.”   The  absence  of  documented
prostration, in conjunction with indications of reasonable  job  performance
reflected  in  outstanding  EPRs  and  his  commander’s  recommendation  for
retention (with cross training), support the IPEB’s rating of 10 percent.

Depression  was  never  mentioned  in  the  applicant’s  available  military
medical record, and by his description occurred only after  discharge.   The
IPEB  may  only  consider  medical  conditions  contemporaneous   with   its
deliberation for a determination of unfitness and disability rating; it  was
therefore not addressed, and is not a basis on which to change the  original
disability rating.

The applicant contends that he was misinformed by his PEBLO  concerning  the
Board’s findings.  While it is impossible to know the content  of  any  such
interaction, the  applicant  did  sign  an  AF  Form  1180,  indicating  his
agreement with the findings and  recommended  disposition  of  the  PEB  and
waiver of right to a formal PEB hearing.

It is the BCMR Medical Consultant’s opinion that action and  disposition  in
this case are proper and equitable  reflecting  compliance  with  Air  Force
directives that implement the law.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 15 Mar 07, a copy of the  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant 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 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  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the  case;  however,  we  agree
with the opinion and recommendation  of  the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  and
adopt his 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-2006-
00429 in Executive Session on 2 May 2007, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Panel Chair
      Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
      Mr. Clarence R. Anderegg, Member

The following documentary evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2006-
00429 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Jan 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFBCMR Medical Consultant,
                dated 13 Mar 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Mar 07.



                                             JAMES W. RUSSELL, III
                                             Panel Chair