RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03907
            INDEX CODE:  108.00
            COUNSEL:  MR. JOHN HAUGEN
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His honorable discharge be changed to a disability discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Multiple  medical  doctors  have  attributed   his   disqualifying   medical
condition (Reactive Airway Disease) as  being  connected  with  occupational
exposure to a cleaning solvent used in the wheel  and  tire  shop  to  clean
wheel bearings and landing gear components.  Proper hygiene  work  practices
of minimizing fumes in the work place were not  adhered  to  during  use  of
this chemical.  No Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) was  on  file  for  the
chemical being used as it was believed  a  different  product  was  in  use.
Without any means of exchanging contaminated air  in  the  work  place  with
fresh air, lingering fumes would remain in the work area until  they  slowly
evaporated.  This would significantly increase the duration of exposure.

In support of his request, the  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,
statements from several physicians, information pertaining to the  MSDS  and
the chemical used, and witness statements.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Prior to applicant’s enlistment in the Air Force Reserve (AFRes)  he  served
in the Marine Corps Reserve.   On  1  June  2007,  applicant  was  honorably
discharged from the AFRes for physical disqualification.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted  from
the applicant’s military personnel records,  are  contained  in  the  letter
prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/SGP recommends denial.  SGP states the applicant was identified with  a
potentially  disqualifying  medical  condition,  exercise  induced   asthma,
during his annual  preventive  health  assessment  (PHA)  conducted  by  his
supporting reserve medical  unit  (RMU)  on  19  January  2007.   Since  his
medical condition was identified outside a period of  military  service  and
it appeared there was no service connection, his  RMU  prepared  a  non-duty
related worldwide duty package for submission to HQ  AFRC/SGP  IAW  AFI  48-
123, Volume 2.  As part of the processing of this package,  he  was  briefed
and signed a statement of understanding of this medical evaluation  process.
 This included a statement that he was entitled to have his  case  submitted
to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for a  “fitness  only”  determination
should HQ  AFRC/SGP  medically  disqualify  him  for  his  non-duty  related
medical condition.  He elected not to have his case submitted to a  PEB  and
upon review by HQ  AFRC/SGP  on  6  March  2007,  he  was  deemed  medically
disqualified and  his  package  was  submitted  for  involuntary  separation
without review by a PEB.

In  April  2007,  the  applicant  expressed  concern   to   Bioenvironmental
Engineering Services (BES) over the change to the chemical  NEW  II  in  his
shop from the previous chemical, Breakthrough.  He noted that the  MSDS  for
the new chemical indicated respiratory protection should be  used  depending
on the airborne concentration.  BES briefed him that a  workshop  evaluation
would be conducted and that not all MSDS listed precautions are  needed  due
to  differences  in  work  practices  from  place   to   place.    The   BES
investigation revealed that  all  required  personal  protective  equipment,
parts  cleaning  procedures  and  controls  were  adequate  and   in   place
correctly.   The  switch  to  NEW  II  was  coordinated  appropriately   and
potential exposures were appropriately evaluated by  BES,  the  Occupational
Health Working Group doctors, and all appropriate measures were in place  to
reduce occupational exposures well below accepted  standards.   The  NEW  II
MSDS  does  in  fact  note  that  respiratory  protection  may  be  required
depending on concentration  levels  and  ventilation  if  working  with  the
product in enclosed areas and/or in  elevated  temperatures.   However,  the
tasks performed with this chemical were very infrequent, of  short  duration
and the  levels  were  demonstrated  to  be  well  below  accepted  exposure
concentrations.  For this reason respiratory  protection  was  not  required
nor recommended for the work  place.   Furthermore,  additional  ventilation
was not deemed necessary because worst case sample results were  3%  of  the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration  (OSHA)  permissible  exposure
limit (PEL) for the cleaning solvent.

On 13 June 2007, he filed a complaint with OSHA.   OSHA  inspectors  arrived
on 20 June 2007 and conducted an assessment of the shop.   The  findings  of
this investigation confirmed the findings of the  previous  shop  assessment
and  agreed  that  no  respiratory  protection  was  needed   and   adequate
administrative engineering controls existed for controlling  vapors.   Based
on the review conducted by BES and OSHA,  no  federal  hazard  communication
(HAZCOM) violations exist for the change out from Breakthrough to NEW II.

ARC members are entitled to  disability  evaluation  for  service  connected
conditions only IAW DODI 1241.2 and 1332.38.  The process  for  establishing
whether a  reserve  member’s  medical  condition  is  service  connected  is
outlined in AFI 36-2910, Line of Duty (Misconduct) Determination (LOD).   He
was not entitled to an LOD determination based on the fact he was not  in  a
military status when the condition was identified and no  potential  service
connection existed.   There  is  no  evidence  military  service  caused  or
permanently aggravated his condition.  He was  appropriately  processed  IAW
with all applicable instructions, regulations and policies as an ARC  member
through the non-duty  related  world-wide  duty  evaluation  process  for  a
reactive  airway  disease.   Numerous  evaluations  by  BES  and  OSHA  were
conducted of his workshop in which he spent most of his time as  a  civilian
employee, Air Reserve Technician (ART),  and  limited  time  in  a  military
status.  No LOD was required,  therefore  processing  through  the  DES  for
military entitlements was not required.

AFRC/SGP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the evaluation and states he was not granted  due
process during  the  discharge  process.   Being  diagnosed  with  exercise-
induced asthma does not rule out the possibility  of  the  disease  stemming
from exposure to a previous irritant, such as fumes from  chemicals  in  the
workplace.

He was informed by the military attorney appointed to his case  that  a  PEB
is solely for the purpose of determining fitness for duty or  fitness  only.
He was not contesting the fact that he was physically unfit for  duty.   The
PEB had no bearing on whether or not his case  was  service-connected.   The
fact that he waived  the  PEB  for  this  matter  is  irrelevant.   What  is
relevant is U.S.C. 10, 1214 which states “No member of the armed forces  may
be retired or separated for physical disability  without  a  full  and  fair
hearing if he demands it.”  He requested this new and  relevant  information
be investigated and considered well before his separation  date  of  1  June
2007.  Since the unit gave AFRC inaccurate information and depicted  a  much
healthier  working  environment  than  what  actually   existed   prior   to
implementing the ventilation controls, AFRC deemed that  no  evidence  of  a
service-connection existed based on false information.  He believes  he  did
not receive a full and fair hearing.

AFI 36-2910, paragraph 1.4.2.1 states that members of the ARC who  incur  or
aggravate an injury, illness or disease while  serving  on  active  military
status may be subject to  an  LOD.   He  believes  he  submitted  sufficient
documentation which meets this requirement.  He was exposed  to  a  chemical
which MSDS  states  “may  aggravate  respiratory  diseases”  without  proper
ventilation, while serving on active military status  during  unit  training
assemblies and annual tours.  Multiple medical  doctors  have  directly  and
indirectly connected this exposure to his condition.

The  301st  Maintenance  Group  wheel  and  tire   shop   violated   Federal
regulations by not posting the correct MSDS upon  switching  chemicals  from
one product to another.  Not reviewing the proper MSDS resulted in the  unit
failing to provide adequate ventilation to control fumes  in  the  workplace
in accordance with the manufacturer’s  recommendations,  and  OSHA  standard
1910.134(a)(1) concerning the prevention of occupational diseases caused  by
breathing harmful fumes in the workplace.   The  unit  made  no  attempt  to
minimize fumes in the workplace  prior  to  April  2007.   Notarized  signed
statements from fellow airmen who also work  in  the  wheel  and  tire  shop
confirm these facts.  Even if the concentration  of  fumes  were  below  the
allowable exposure  limits,  these  limits  would  not  apply  to  asthmatic
individuals, and are irrelevant in determining whether or not his  condition
was aggravated by this exposure.  Medical documentation suggests  that  this
exposure contributed in  causing  or  aggravating  his  condition.   He  was
exposed to these fumes  without  the  manufacturer’s  suggested  ventilation
controls.

His disqualifying medical condition was caused or aggravated by exposure  to
respiratory irritants during periods of active military status that  he  was
denied an LOD determination prior to  military  separation  based  on  false
information.

Applicant’s complete response, 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or an injustice.   After  a  thorough  review  of  the
evidence of record  along  with  the  applicant's  submission,  we  find  no
evidence of an error within his discharge processing and are  not  persuaded
by his assertions that he has been the victim of an injustice.  We  are  not
persuaded by the evidence presented that the applicant was denied rights  to
which he was entitled or that the appropriate standards were not applied  in
this case.  His contentions regarding the chemicals used in  his  work  area
are duly noted; however, having found no conclusive evidence supporting  his
argument that his condition was aggravated by exposure to chemicals  in  his
work area, his argument appears to be purely speculative.  In  our  opinion,
the Air Force office of primary responsibility has adequately addressed  his
contentions and therefore, we adopt its  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our
conclusion that the applicant failed to sustain his burden of proof  of  the
existence of either an error or injustice in this case.  Therefore,  in  the
absence of persuasive 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 the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or 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-2007-
03907 in Executive Session on 27 March 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                 Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Anthony P. Reardon, Member
                 Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 October 2007, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Record.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFRC/SGP, dated 30 January 2008.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 February 2008.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 3 March 2008, w/atchs.





                 GREGORY A. PARKER
                 Panel Chair