RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01045
		INDEX CODE:  108.01
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The reason for her discharge be changed from misconduct to reflect that she was discharged for medical reasons.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was in her fourth week of advanced training when she was diagnosed with asthma.  She was released from active duty because of this and has no idea why misconduct was listed as the reason for discharge nor does she know why she did not receive an honorable discharge.  She was never in any trouble while on active duty.  

In support of her request, applicant provided a copy of her DD Fm 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; and, AF Form 100, Request and Authorization for Separation.  Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 8 Aug 01.  On 15 Feb 02, she was notified by her commander that he was recommending that she be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.26.1, for Unsatisfactory Performance or Conduct, specifically Unsatisfactory Duty Performance.  The specific reason for this action was that between 5 Nov 01 and 30 Jan 02 she had been out of training for over 90 days and stated that she had no desire to train and was reluctant to meet Air Force standards.  She was advised of her rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt on that same date.  She elected to waive her right to consult counsel and waived her right to submit statements on her own behalf.  In a legal review of her case, the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended that she be separated.  On 25 Feb 02, the discharge authority concurred with the recommendations and directed that she be discharged with service characterized as honorable.  She was discharged on 5 Mar 02. She served 6 months and 28 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.  The Medical Consultant states that on 20 Oct 01 she presented to the clinic and received over-the-counter medication for minor cold symptoms.  She was evaluated on 5 Nov 01 complaining of shortness of breath, wheezing and nonproductive cough.  She was diagnosed with an upper respiratory tract infection and returned to duty.  She was seen again on 13 Nov 01 complaining of cold symptoms, shortness of breath, and chest pain with exercise since basic military training.  She had wheezing on physical examination and asthma was suspected.  On 14 Nov 01, she was evaluated in the allergy clinic and it was noted that she experienced her symptoms mainly with exertion and occasionally at rest.  She reported a history of shortness of breath with exertion for many years prohibiting her participation in team sports.  The documentation of her December 2001 evaluation is not present and it is not known if she was ever diagnosed with asthma.  

Her respiratory symptoms interfered with her participation in continued military training for 90 days.  Due to the missing documentation in her service medical records, it is not clear what her final diagnosis was, however, her commander indicates there was medical documentation provided for the administrative separation process that indicated a diagnosis of asthma.  It appears that her service characterization as general was due to her attitude, the fact that she had not completed training and had not served in a fashion sufficient to earn an honorable characterization.  Her symptoms of shortness of breath with exertion were reported by the applicant to have existed for several years prior to entering the service.  

The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.  DPPD states that her military records confirm that she was never referred to the Air Force Disability Evaluation System (DES).  A review of her induction prescreening and medical history forms fails to show a problem with asthma or respiratory problems prior to her entry on active duty.  She was referred to the Allergy Clinic and Wilford Hall Medical Center shortly following her entry into technical school and was subsequently placed on several temporary duty restrictions and profiles that precluded her from finalizing her training.  A counseling session on 31 Jan 01 reveals that she no longer desired to continue with training.  Her voluntary action to refuse to continue on with her training subsequently precluded her from reasonably fulfilling the purpose of her employment with the Air Force.  Her commander's action to administratively separate her appears to be justified based on her reluctance to recommence with her training.  

Occurrence of signs or symptoms of chronic diseases identified in the early stages of a military career that the disease could not have originated in that short a period will be accepted as proof that the disease manifested prior to entry into active military service.  Had she been referred to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and the case referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) the board more than likely would have recommended that she be discharged for a medical provision determined to have existed prior to service without entitlement to military benefits.  

The DPPD evaluation, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that she never stated to anyone that she did not desire to expand her military career.  To live a military life has been nothing but a dream come true for her.  She did at one point lose interest in being a Security Forces specialist simply because she had been out of training for a long period of time.  She joined the military because that is what she desired to do. She believes that she was truly dedicated and very willing to do her job.  

Her respiratory problems came only when she overexerted herself, not as occasional as the present.  She played basketball in high school but she could not continue because of a severely sprained ankle, not because of her breathing.  However, she has no medical records to confirm that.

Her complete submission is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  The applicant noted errors on her DD Form 214 which reflects that her service was characterized as "general" instead of "honorable", and the narrative reason for separation reflects "misconduct" when it should reflect "unsatisfactory performance."  We also noted that the corresponding RE code reflects "2B" instead of "2C."  We have been advised that these errors are administrative in nature and will be corrected accordingly.  In regard to the request for her records to be changed to reflect that she was discharged for medical reasons; no evidence has been presented which would lead us to believe that a physical condition existed at the time of her discharge that warranted a finding of unfitness in accordance with the governing Air Force instruction, which implements the law.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  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 probable 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 02-01045 in Executive Session on 20 Aug 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Apr 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 20 May 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 19 Jun 02
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jun 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, not dated.