RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00866
		INDEX CODE:  100.03, 100.06
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her medical diagnosis be changed.

2.  Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was wrongfully diagnosed and only provided an entry-level separation.

In support of her request, applicant provided statements from her physicians and a document extracted from her medical record.  Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 Jun 02.  On 28 Aug 02, while attending Security Forces technical training, she was notified by her commander that he was recommending that she be discharged from the Air Force in accordance with AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.14, for erroneous enlistment.  The specific reason for this action was the Chronological Record of Medical Care dated 4 Aug 02, which indicated that she was diagnosed with Vocal Cord Dysfunction (VCD).  It was determined that the condition existed prior to service and was not aggravated by service.  Because of the condition, her ability to function in a military environment was significantly impaired.  She was advised of her rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of the notification on that same date.    The applicant waived her right to consult counsel and elected not to submit statements on her own behalf.  In a legal review of the case, the attorney advisor found the case legally sufficient.  The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed that she be discharged with an entry-level separation.  Applicant was discharged from the Air Force on 27 Sep 02.  She served 3 months and 17 days on active duty.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The Medical Consultant states that individuals with VCD do become incapacitated during an attack, as much as with an asthma attack.  The attacks are precipitated by stress including military training and operations and may not occur again during less stressful times.  Patients with this condition are often thought to have asthma, or exercise induced asthma.  Provocative testing with exercise or inhaled histamine can reproduce the symptoms in some individuals with VCD enabling an opportunity for diagnosis by direct visualization of the vocal cords as occurred in this case.  Thus, the normal examination in December 2002, while the applicant was asymptomatic does not exclude this diagnosis.  She was diagnosed by a specialist experienced in the diagnosis of this condition.  The applicant had a history of asthma and exertional related bronchospasm existing prior to service.  Testing reliably excluded asthma.  The presence of symptoms previously diagnosed as exercise related bronchospasm is consistent with the presence of VCD.  VCD is a chronic, recurrent condition, and is disqualifying for service.  There is no single effective treatment which would reliably prevent recurrent symptoms interfering with the performance of duty.  Enlistment medical standards stipulate that any condition of the larynx that interferes with speech or breathing is disqualifying for enlistment.  The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  Airmen are given entry-level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service.  Uncharacterized entry-level service should not be viewed as negative and should not be confused with other types of separation.  The DPPRRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.  

AFPC/DPPAE states that the applicant's RE code 2C, "Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service" is correct.  Waivers of RE codes for enlistment are considered and approved based on the needs of the respective military service and recruiting initiatives at the time of the enlistment inquiry.  The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 18 Jul 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of her case; however, we do not find the opinions of her civilian physicians sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the BCMR Medical Consultant.  Therefore, we are not persuaded that she has been the victim of an error or injustice with respect to her medical diagnosis.  Regarding her request to change her RE code, evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that a change of her RE code is warranted.  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 she 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 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 BC-2003-00866 in Executive Session on 21 Aug 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Feb 03.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 27 May 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Jul 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 11 Jul 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jul 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair