RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01757
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, be changed from “Erroneous Enlistment.”
___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He had no prior diagnosis for asthma by competent medical authority prior to enlistment.

In support of his appeal, applicant provided a statement from a physician.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 August 2001, in the grade of airman basic (AB/E-1).

On 6 Dec 01, the squadron commander initiated administrative discharge action against the applicant for erroneous enlistment.  The reason for the proposed action was that he received a Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 26 Nov 01, that found the applicant was diagnosed with asthma which did not exist prior to enlistment.  The diagnosis did not meet retention standards for continued military service and applicant’s ability to function in the military was significantly impaired.  The commander recommended that the applicant be given an entry-level separation.  On that same date, applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification.  He waived his right to consult counsel and to submit statements in his own behalf.  On 10 Dec 01, the staff judge advocate found the case to be legally sufficient, and the discharge authority approved the entry-level separation with service uncharacterized.

The applicant received an uncharacterized entry-level separation on 18 Dec 2001, by reason of “Erroneous Enlistment.”  He was credited with 3 months and 28 days of active duty service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and recommended denial.  The applicant developed recurrent problems with shortness of breath and chest tightness diagnosed as asthma while in security forces training.  His medical records reveal that he experienced recurrent “minor cold symptoms” beginning in early fall 2001.  He was seen twice with complaints of shortness of breath, chest pains and chest tightness.  He was referred to the Allergy Clinic where he was found to have a positive histamine bronchoprovocation test on 26 Nov 01 (36% fall in the FEV1 with significant improvement with administration of a bronchodilator medication).  The histamine bronchoprovocation test is performed by administering nebulized histamine inhaled at increasing doses with pulmonary function measurements with each dose.  As a result of the histamine challenge test and the allergist’s diagnosis, the applicant underwent entry-level separation.  He denied any history of asthma prior to entering active duty.  

Medical standards for enlistment (and for continued service) indicate that “asthma, including reactive airway disease, exercise induced bronchospasm or asthmatic bronchitis, reliably diagnosed at any age,” is disqualifying (AFI 48-123, Atch. 3, 3.12.4.).  Thus the medical standards are broader than a defined diagnosis of asthma and include reactive airways that may not meet strict criteria for the diagnosis of asthma.  The Air Force as a matter of policy and practice, accepts a positive bronchoprovocation test when performed in subjects with symptoms suspected to be asthma or reactive airways disease as disqualifying.

Erroneous enlistment is an enlistment that would not have occurred if the service had known about the applicant’s condition prior to enlistment and the applicant did not intentionally conceal his condition.  Fraudulent enlistment is when the condition is intentionally concealed.  There is no evidence that the applicant concealed any medical history of reactive airway disease.  There is also no pre-service medical information available to assess if there was any evidence of reactive airways disease.  Action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  They found that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, that the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  They also noted that airmen are given entry-level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service.  The Department of Defense (DOD) determined if a member served less than 180 days continuous service, it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service.  Therefore, his uncharacterized service is correct and in accordance with DOD and Air Force instructions.  They further stated that an entry-level separation should not be viewed as negative or less than honorable and should not be confused with other types of separation.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 20 Sep 02 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (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 error or injustice.  The applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly noted; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations 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.  The evidence of record reflects that the applicant received an entry-level separation for erroneous enlistment based on a diagnosis of asthma, to include reactive airway disease.  We find no evidence which would lead us to believe that his separation was improper or contrary to the governing directive under which it was effected.  Accordingly, 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-01757 in Executive Session on 4 February 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 May 02, w/atch. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 19 Aug 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Sep 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Sep 02.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair