RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2002-02663
		INDEX CODE 100.06  110.02
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Separation Program Designator (SPD) (narrative reason) and reenlistment eligibility (RE) codes for his 1999 entry-level separation be changed so he can reenlist.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The recommendation for separation was not based on tests to confirm a diagnosis of asthma, but based on his civilian medical record. Those records do not contain specialized tests such as a spirometry or any of the tests mentioned in AFI 48-123. Specialized tests made after separation by a pulmonologist indicate he does not have asthma. He believes it appropriate to change the SPD and RE codes so he can reenlist in the Air Force.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 Feb 99. On his entry exam he indicated he did not have asthma, shortness of breath, or other respiratory/allergy problems. He completed six weeks of basic military training from 17 Feb to 2 Apr 99 with no symptoms.

A 17 May 99 narrative summary by the Reid Health Services Center at Lackland AFB, TX, indicates the applicant was seen at the Center on 10 May 99 because he had some wheezing and did not know whether he had asthma while he was in-processing. The applicant denied any hospitalization, intubation, shortness of breath, or chest tightness. The applicant’s civilian records from 1992 to 1998 noted that on at least two separate occasions he had a history of bronchial asthma. The applicant was seen in the allergy clinic on 12 May 99. Physical exam was unremarkable and histamine challenge was negative. Diagnosis was asthma. The applicant was seen again on 17 May 99 when the process for administrative separation was initiated.

On 17 Jun 99, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend an entry-level separation for erroneous enlistment due to asthma. The applicant waived his right to counsel and to submit statements. On 17 Jun 99, the commander recommended the applicant for discharge for erroneous enlistment. The case was found legally sufficient and, on 22 Jun 99, the discharge authority directed the applicant’s entry-level separation for erroneous enlistment.

On 1 Jul 99, the applicant was discharged with an entry-level separation, uncharacterized service, after 4 months and 15 days of active service. His SPD code was “JFW” (Failed medical/physical procurement standards) and his RE code was “4C” (Separated for concealment of juvenile records, minority, failure to meet physical standards for enlistment, or failure to attain a 9.0 reading), which is a waiverable code.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant notes the pulmonologist’s letter stating there is no evidence of asthma and the normal spirograms (lung function test), but that these are only pre-bronchodilator values and no repeat bronchoprovocation testing is provided. A histamine bronchoprovocation test performed as part of the applicant’s evaluation was reported as negative. The actual data from that test is not available for review. A negative histamine bronchoprovocation test is considered relatively reliable evidence against a diagnosis of asthma; however, it should be noted that false negative tests do occur uncommonly in less than five percent of cases. Medical standards for enlistment are broader than a defined diagnosis of asthma and include reactive airways that may not meet strict criteria for the diagnosis of asthma.  The applicant did not experience respiratory symptoms while in training or only mild transient symptoms not requiring therapy. He had a history of respiratory symptoms treated with asthma medications and called asthma by his physician in Puerto Rico without documentation of the rationale for the diagnosis. Although action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable, there is insufficient evidence to support a diagnosis of asthma and no clear evidence of disqualifying reactive airways disease. The Consultant recommends the RE code be changed to enable the applicant to apply for reenlistment. Change of the RE code is not a medical clearance or waiver for respiratory symptoms or conditions that may be diagnosed at the time of reenlistment or while on active duty. Medical evaluation may require allergy or pulmonary evaluation including bronchoprovocation testing.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPRS advises that airmen are given entry-level separation/uncharacterized service when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service. The Department of Defense (DOD) determined it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize such limited service. The uncharacterized service is correct and should not be construed as negative or confused with other types of separation. Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE recommends the request to change the RE code be denied because the applicant failed medical procurement standards due to a diagnosis of asthma prior to service.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 23 May 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.	The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.	Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice to warrant changing the applicant’s RE code. The available evidence does not establish conclusively whether or not the applicant has asthma. The medical tests are not definitive. The Board does not possess the medical expertise to determine the applicant’s condition and for that reason is reluctant to award the applicant an RE code permitting immediate reenlistment. The applicant could apply for a waiver to reenlist with the “4C” RE code he currently has, even though it refers to failed medical standards. RE codes from both the “4” and “3” series permit an individual to apply for reenlistment and, if the person has the desirable skills and is acceptable, medically or otherwise, the Reserves may elect to waive the ineligibility and allow reenlistment. A majority of the Board was persuaded that, given the reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the diagnosis of asthma, the applicant’s RE code should be changed to a more innocuous waiverable code of “3K” (Reserved for HQ AFPC/AFBCMR use). The Board majority believes this might facilitate an easier waiver process. As for the applicant’s request to change the SPD code, the majority of the Board believes the narrative definition of failed medical standards should remain as a flag to the services until the applicant is able to demonstrate to their satisfaction that he does not have asthma. Whether or not he is successful will also depend on the needs of the service because the Board’s recommendation in no way guarantees he will be allowed to reenter the armed services. The Board majority therefore concludes the applicant’s records should be corrected to the extent indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that, in conjunction with his entry level separation on 1 July 1999, he was issued a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “3K,” rather than “4C.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 25 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

A majority of the Board voted to correct the records, as recommended.  Mr. Sheuerman voted to deny the case in its entirety, but did not wish to submit a Minority Report. The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-02663 was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Nov 02, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 20 Feb 03.
  Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 Mar 03.
  Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 13 May 03.
  Exhibit F.  SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 03.

AFBCMR BC-2002-02663

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to    , be corrected to show that, in conjunction with his entry level separation on 1 July 1999, he was issued a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “3K,” rather than “4C.”