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 applicants 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 applicants
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 Consultants 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 Consultants recommendation
because he misunderstood the nature of his request and did not
meet the burden of proof to deny his request.
The applicants complete response, with attachment, is at
Exhibit E.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD:
After careful consideration of applicants 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 applicants 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01960
DPSD states the evidence reveals no error or injustice occurred during the disability process or at the time of separation. We took notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of the existence of an error or injustice. Exhibit E. Letter,...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03317
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; medical records, letters of support, and other various documents associated with his request. Thus none of these conditions are In the Line of Duty (ILOD) as applied to Air Force disability retirement. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANTS REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02366
On 29 Jul 03, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) referred the applicant to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) for idiopathic rhabdomyolysis. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 Jun 06 for review and comment within 30 days. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00313
Based on the diagnoses of Spondylolisthesis and anxiety reaction, they determined he was physically unfit for active military service and referred him to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The applicant states that during the nuclear testing he was ordered to fly through the nuclear mushroom cloud to determine what effect it would have on...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03382
Applicant discusses the DVA’s determination regarding his medical condition. In 2001, over 6 years following the applicant’s discharge, the DVA added Adult Onset Diabetes to the list of diseases associated with Agent Orange exposure for purposes of granting presumptive service connected disability compensation under Title 38. Title 38, Section 1116 is the law that provides for the DVA to grant service connected disability benefits for certain diseases that develop after discharge that may...
The Medical Consultant notes that the DVA has denied service connected disability compensation for a condition that the Air Force has awarded disability compensation. Disability boards can only rate unfitting medical conditions based upon the individual's status at the time of his or her evaluation. The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-02693
DPFP stated that, after being diagnosed with a seizure disorder, the applicant was discharged from the New Mexico Air National Guard on 1 Feb 01. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, the AFBCMR Medical Consultant provided the following advisory opinion. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01714
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01714 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Force (AF) Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, be changed to reflect yes in Section 10, Item C, Disability was the direct result of Armed Conflict or was caused by an Instrumentality of War and...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00110
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His injury was incurred while lifting a patient during a training exercise while serving as a combat medic. DPPD states his service medical records contain a review of his service and DVA medical records reveals a long history of neck pain with treatment noted as early as March 1967. We agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-01580
He was not fully counseled on the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and PEB processes. In a letter dated 12 Oct 06, his commander recommended he be separated from service based upon the applicant’s communication difficulties. While the DVA may separately rate any and all medical conditions the applicant has, the military can only evaluate and rate those conditions which render a service member unfit to perform duty at the time of the determination.