RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01880
                                             INDEX CODE:  108.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXX                     COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be changed to  reflect  eligibility  for  Air  Force  disability
retirement prior to age 60.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have been offered an Air Force disability retirement  based  on  a
medical disqualifying condition that was incurred while  he  was  on  active
duty and found to be present while on active duty.  Instead, he was told  to
accept either  an  administrative  discharge  or  early  Air  Force  Reserve
retirement.

On 2 November 1994, he was  granted  a  30%  disability  from  the  Veterans
Administration (VA) for a  microscopic  colitis  incurred  while  on  active
duty, Gulf War presumptive.

On 2 February 1995, during a routine  physical  while  on  active  duty,  he
marked yes to intestinal trouble on an SF-93, and also marked  that  he  had
been seen by a physician, had recently been diagnosed at a VA hospital,  and
had been awarded a disability pension.

On 4 February 1995, during a routine annual physical while on  active  duty,
the attending medical doctor noted an  abnormal  abdomen  and  viscera,  and
hyperactive bowel sounds on an SF-88, and also noted that  he  had  recently
been evaluated at a VA hospital.

In support of his appeal, he has provided copies of  a  personal  statement,
Reserve Order EK-3657 which assigned him to the  Retired  Reserve  effective
15 July 1999,  two  statements,  signed  by  the  AFRC  Chief  of  Aerospace
Medicine Branch,  which  found  him  medically  disqualified  for  continued
military service and flying duty, statements from  the  85  APS/CC  and  662
RSG/CC approving his application for transfer  to  the  Retired  Reserve  in
lieu of administrative discharge, an SF-93, Report of  Medical  History,  an
SF-88, Report of  Medical  Examination,  and  a  Rating  Decision  from  the
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On  6  January  1999,  the  Air  Force  Reserve  Aerospace  Medicine  Branch
determined the applicant was medically disqualified for  flying  duties  and
continued military service with the Air Force Reserve due to  a  non-service
connected medical condition of Chronic Inflammatory  Bowel  Disease/Colitis.
The  commander  supported  his  retention;  however,  he  was   subsequently
transferred to the Retired Reserve Awaiting Pay at Age 60 in  the  grade  of
technical sergeant (E-6), effective 15 July 1999.  His date of birth  is  21
March 1963 (age 44).

In a DVA ratings decision of 25 August 2006, the  applicant  was  awarded  a
40% disability rating for herniated nucleus pulposus L4-L5 with  osteopenia,
a 30% disability rating for hiatal hernia  with  esophageal  reflux  disease
and microscopic colitis due to undiagnosed illness, a 20% disability  rating
for residuals of a right ankle fracture, and a  10%  disability  rating  for
residuals of a fractured left index finger.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the  records
is warranted.

A review of his medical records reveals that on 18 August 1985, he was  seen
in the Emergency Department with  an  upset  stomach  and  cramps,  and  was
diagnosed with viral enteritis (stomach flu).  On 25 November 1990,  he  was
seen for nausea and vomiting, with cramps and  “gassy”  feeling.   He  later
reported rare symptoms of abdominal distress until 1991, when  he  developed
frequent bowel movements (4 to 12 per day).  He was  given  a  diagnosis  of
Irritable Bowel Syndrome, and treated with dietary  changes.   There  is  no
further documentation of  military  medical  visits  for  these  complaints.
During a Flight Physical Examination in February 1995,  a  recent  diagnosis
of Irritable Bowel Syndrome by the DVA was noted, hyperactive  bowel  sounds
were observed, and he was placed  on  Duties  Not  Involving  Flying  (DNIF)
status for the remainder of his career.  On 7 February  1995,  his  civilian
gastroenterologist  noted  that  “he  has  no  specific  inflammatory  bowel
disease and no evidence of irritable bowel syndrome.”   In  a  letter  of  6
April 1998,  his  gastroenterologist  wrote  “[the  applicant]  underwent  a
colonoscopy procedure, during this procedure biopsies were taken  from  [the
applicant’s] large intestine.  The pathology  report  was  read  as  chronic
inflammation which is non-specific and  does  not  support  any  established
diagnosis for a bowel disease.”  The applicant reported 8-12  trips  to  the
bathroom per day with abdominal pain, gas, and bloating.

The Air Force Disability Evaluation System (DES), by law,  only  compensates
those medical conditions that were disabling at the time of  discharge.   In
this case, the  applicant’s  condition  was  considered  unfitting  for  the
rigors of further military service, especially duties involving flying,  but
presented only a minor disruption in his ability to seek employment  in  the
civilian sector.  Once  the  rating  is  finalized,  it  cannot  be  changed
despite any further progression of the applicant’s disease process.  On  the
other hand, the DVA is authorized to reevaluate his disability and assign  a
different disability rating as the condition changes over the years.

There were no military medical record entries between  his  deactivation  in
1991 and 1995, when  he  reported  gastrointestinal  complaints.   In  early
1995, he produced a letter from a civilian gastroenterologist who  had  been
seeing him.  This  implies  that  his  gastrointestinal  complaints  neither
originated nor were aggravated by the performance of  his  military  duties.
The evaluation by ARPC in January 1999  represented  a  “fitness  for  duty”
evaluation in which the applicant’s case  was  evaluated  to  determine  his
fitness for future service, but, since the condition was not acquired  while
on active duty, but was rather a normal progression of his disease  process,
he was not eligible for compensation.

Although the applicant had a DVA disability rating  as  early  as  1998,  he
continued to meet his Reserve obligations.  The  decision  to  separate  him
was made  based  on  the  risk  of  an  attack  that  might  impair  mission
accomplishment.  This does not imply that the applicant  was  disabled,  but
rather that his disease  is  subject  to  sudden  deterioration  and  duties
involving  flying  might  be  particularly  precarious.   Of  note  is   his
commander’s statement supporting his retention.  One can infer that  he  was
not disabled at the time of discharge although he no longer met the  medical
standards associated with his duties with the Air Force Reserve.

The preponderance of evidence of  the  record  shows  that  the  applicant’s
condition was unrelated  to  his  military  service  and  not  eligible  for
compensation.  Action and disposition in this case are proper and  equitable
reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s  evaluation,  with  attachment  regarding  the
differences  between  the  Air  Force’s  DES  and   the   DVA’s   disability
evaluations, is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the evaluation was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  10
October 2007, for review and comment, within 30 days.  However, 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 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.  The BCMR  Medical  Consultant
advises that the Air Force Disability Evaluation System (DES), by law,  only
compensates those medical conditions that were  disabling  at  the  time  of
discharge, whereas the DVA is authorized to reevaluate  his  disability  and
assign a different disability rating  as  the  condition  changes  over  the
years.  In this case, the applicant’s  condition  was  considered  unfitting
for the rigors of further  military  service,  especially  duties  involving
flying.  The decision to separate him was made  based  on  the  risk  of  an
attack that might impair mission accomplishment, and does not imply that  he
was  disabled,  but  rather  that  his  disease  was   subject   to   sudden
deterioration,  and  duties   involving   flying   might   be   particularly
precarious.  The evaluation by ARPC in January 1999 represented  a  “fitness
for duty”  evaluation  in  which  the  applicant’s  case  was  evaluated  to
determine his fitness for future service, but, since the condition  was  not
acquired while on active duty, but was rather a normal  progression  of  his
disease process, he was not eligible for  compensation.   The  preponderance
of evidence of the record shows the applicant’s condition was  unrelated  to
his military service and was not eligible for compensation.   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-2007-01880
in Executive Session on 4 December 2007, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Ms Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
                       Mr Richard K. Hartley, Member
                       Mr Reginald P. Howard, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Jun 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 5 Oct 07,
                w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Oct 07.




                                   KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                   Panel Chair