RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00110

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His honorable discharge status be changed to medical retirement, 
service connected.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged from the hospital and the Air Force without a 
medical evaluation board (MEB) while he was very ill and unfit 
for duty.

His wife was told she could not visit while he was in the 
hospital because he was to iii, running a high fever and 
probably would not recognize her.

His medical conditions are a result of him being exposed to 
Carbon Tetrachloride (CTC), which is a neurotoxin that is more 
hazardous than Agent Orange.  His sudden release from the 
hospital and Air Force was part of a cover up by the doctors and 
the government who knew he was suffering from exposure to CTC 
and failed to properly treat and diagnose his condition.

A fellow service member who served in Japan with him was exposed 
to CTC and suffered similar medical conditions as him. 

The Occupational Exposure to Carbon Tetrachloride published in 
1975 documents the effects CTC exposure in humans. 

His medical documents for the period in question are 
mysteriously missing from his military personnel record.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) has recently 
acknowledged that his neuropathy was caused by exposure to CTC 
while he was in the Air Force and that it was probably the cause 
for most of his other medical problems.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 12 Jan 53, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the 
Regular Air Force.

The morning report dated 9 Aug 57 reflects the applicant 
admitted to the hospital on 3 Aug 57.

The morning report dated 14 Aug 57 reflects the applicant was 
released from the hospital on 12 Aug 57.

On 26 Aug 57, the applicant was honorably discharged, and 
transferred to the Air Force Reserve on 27 Aug 57.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.    


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there 
is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The applicant 
believes his medical condition was not properly diagnosed or 
treated due to a cover-up by government officials who had 
knowledge that he was suffering from toxic exposure to CTC.  The 
discharge of an ill patient from a hospital without the 
completion of care and stabilization or without transferring the 
individual to another health care provider or institution would 
be unacceptable and would violate the standard of care and 
current law.  The applicant provided statements from two former 
service members, one who worked with him and was experiencing 
similar health issues as him; and the other who he encountered 
during his discharge process and was shocked at the applicant’s 
appearance due to his illness.  The Medical Consultant did not 
find these statements alone sufficient to declare the applicant 
should be medically retired.  There were no treatment records or 
hospital summaries provided covering the period in question.  
Nor, were there any profile restrictions imposed that would 
preclude worldwide qualification or trigger a MEB.  While the 
applicant alleges he was either unaware or too ill to know that 
he had an illness, or was too ill to know that he should have 
sought immediate medical treatment after his discharge, there 
was no medical evidence provided for the 12 to 24-month period 
after his discharge that could corroborate the possible 
existence of a continuing or residual illness that may have 
warranted a medical hold for further treatment versus initiating 
an MEB and placement on the Temporary Disability Retired List or 
Permanent Retirement.  Even more difficult is the ability to 
quantify the applicant's impairment for disability rating 
purposes and to determine if he would have collectively reached 
the rating threshold necessary for a medical retirement.  
However, due to the length of time since the applicant's 
discharge, the Medical Consultant finds it virtually impossible 
to now create medical documentation that meets the objective 
requirements for an MEB and retroactive retirement action by a 
Physical Evaluation Board; notwithstanding the recent medical 
opinion disclosed by a DVA examiner who opined that exposure to 
CTC could be a contributor in the development the applicant's 
peripheral neuropathy.  This disclosure could be helpful in 
establishing a nexus with military service; but does not 
automatically warrant a retroactive unfit determination for this 
particular medical condition by the Military Department at the 
"snap shot" time of the applicant's military service.  The DVA 
is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition 
determined service incurred or aggravated, without regard to its 
proven impact upon a service member's fitness to serve, 
narrative reason for separation, or the intervening or 
transpired time period since the date of separation.  This is 
the reason why an individual can be found fit for release from 
military service and yet sometime thereafter receive a 
compensation rating for one or more medical conditions from the 
DVA that were service connected, but were not proven militarily 
unfitting at the time of release from service.  The DVA is also 
empowered to conduct periodic re-evaluations for the purpose of 
adjusting the disability rating awards as the level of 
impairment from a given service connected medical condition may 
improve or worsen over the lifetime of the veteran.  In 
conclusion, the Medical Consultant finds no reason to discredit 
the statements made on the applicant's behalf; particularly 
since there is evidence of his assignment history and training 
that indicate possible exposures to various solvents; but 
opines, absent adequate medical documentation, the applicant has 
not met the burden of proof to warrant the desired change of the 
record. 

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is 
at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant refutes virtually every point made by the AFBCMR 
Medical Consultant and states that the basis for the request to 
change his discharge status is a legal issue and not a medical 
one.  His hasty release from the hospital and Air Force was in 
violation of the rules and regulation.  He should not have been 
discharged without receiving a determination for fitness.

How could he be too ill to receive visitors one day but well 
enough to be discharged the next day and allowed to travel?  

His evidence substantiates he was exposed to CTC, that his 
illnesses were caused by that exposure and the medical officials 
and government were aware of the dangers of being exposed to CTC 
and elected to ignore it.  His medical records for the period in 
question have mysteriously been eliminated from his records.  He 
had a coworker who served in the same unit during the period in 
question who suffered from similar illnesses due to CTC 
exposure.  

He received an reenlistment code which indicates he was not 
eligible for immediate reenlistment.  How is that possible when 
the Air Force spent a considerable amount of time trying to 
convince him to reenlist by encouraging him to apply for Officer 
Candidate School and a promotion?  Was this an issue of him 
being surplus or that the Air Force knew something was wrong 
with him and that it pertained to CTC exposure.

He has been unable to obtain copies of the rules and regulations 
for that period from the government to show that his discharge 
was in violation of Air Force policy.  However, under today 
standards, which he assumes, were similar to the regulations at 
the time of his separation, indicates he should not have been 
discharged if he was unfit.

While he has no documentation to prove that an MEB was not 
convened, this can be resolved by the Air Force producing his 
medical records from his period of hospitalization.  He has 
requested those records for several years and was been told the 
hospital closed in 1960 and there were no records in existence.  
He believes this is ridiculous because the Government records 
everything and discards nothing.  It is quite peculiar that all 
his records have been found except those of his last three weeks 
in Japan.

The Medical Consultant dismisses the validity of the report on 
CTC exposure as it relates to him because it does not include an 
elevated fever as a manifestation of toxic exposure to CTC. 

He did acknowledge he was in good health on questionnaires in 
Japan, because prior to his exposure he was in good health.  He 
had no idea the cause of his medical conditions were the result 
of being exposed to CTC.  This should have been determined by 
his doctors.  His health remained poor for at least two years 
after his discharge.

While his personal recollection and witness statements are from 
50 years ago, he provided 200 pages of supporting documentation 
had the Medical Consultant actually read the documents he would 
have reached a different conclusion.

The Medical Consultant notes the military services and the DVA 
operate under different systems and that he should seek care 
through the DVA.  He is receiving care through the DVA.  His 
relationship with the DVA in no way affects his requesting a 
change in his discharge status.

His request is timely as the date of discovery was 12 May 12.

The Board should ignore the Medical Consultant’s recommendation 
because he misunderstood the nature of his request and did not 
meet the burden of proof to deny his request.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit E.


FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD:

After careful consideration of applicant’s request and the 
available evidence of record, we find the application untimely.  
Applicant did not file within three years after the alleged 
error or injustice was discovered as required by Title 10, 
United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction    
36-2603.  Applicant has not shown a plausible reason for the 
delay in filing, and we are not persuaded that the record raises 
issues of error or injustice which require resolution on the 
merits.  Thus, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of 
justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to file in a timely 
manner.  With respect to his request for his military personnel 
records, inasmuch as the Board is not the custodian for such 
records, it is suggested the applicant contact the National 
Personnel Records Center (NPRC) to request copies of his 
records.


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the 
interest of justice to waive the untimeliness.  It is the 
decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as 
untimely.


The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-00110 in Executive Session on 27 Jan 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-00110 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Jan 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, 
	            dated 1 Jul 14.
        Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Aug 14.
        Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Sep 14, w/atch.