RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01556
			INDEX CODE:  110.02, 108.10
			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His involuntary administrative discharge be changed to a disability discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The record states that he was discharged due to "asthma" which he does not have nor has he ever had.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States, copies of letters sent to his congressman, and documentation extracted from his medical records.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted into the Regular Air Force on 30 October 2001, completed basic military training and entered Security Forces training.  While in training, in late December 2001, he developed an apparent respiratory tract infection associated with shortness of breath.  Prior to entering basic military training he reported that he had minimal symptoms and was active in athletics without problems and had never used an inhaler.  He also reported a family history of asthma in his mother and brothers.  Baseline lung function testing was normal, but because of a high suspicion of asthma or reactive airway disease, he underwent histamine bronchoprovocation testing.  He had a positive test (38% decline in the forced expiratory volume in one second; 20% decline is positive) at a low dose of histamine (2mg - protocol escalates the dose up to 8mg), which completely reversed with inhaled bronchodilator medication.  Based on the histamine bronchoprovocation test; he was medically disqualified for duty and administratively discharged on 5 March 2002 with an entry-level separation and a reenlistment eligibility code (RE) of 2C.  He was credited with four months and six days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant indicates the applicant developed persisting symptoms of shortness of breath following an upper respiratory tract infection that was accompanied by symptoms including wheezing, chest tightness, nocturnal awakenings with shortness of breath and wheezing consistent with bronchospasm.  These symptoms are suggestive of reactive airways disease and asthma.  Based on symptoms consistent with reactive airways disease and asthma and the positive bronchoprovocation test confirming abnormal bronchial reactivity, he underwent entry-level separation.

Medical standards for enlistment and continued service indicate that "asthma, including reactive airways disease, exercise induced bronchospasm or asthmatic bronchitis, reliably diagnosed at any age" is disqualifying for enlistment.  Although the applicant may not have had asthma in the strictest definition before entering the military, he clearly demonstrated symptoms of reactive airways disease or asthma during his presumptive period (first 180 days of active service) that rendered him unfit for duty.  The applicant provided evidence that confirms his claim he was never diagnosed with asthma before entering the service, however he did have allergic rhinitis, and a strong family history of asthma, both indicators of possible underlying bronchial hyper-activity (not an absolute).  Individuals without a history of asthma are routinely identified who develop respiratory symptoms attributed to reactive airways bronchoconstriction during initial military training.  The applicant's experience during training and his positive bronchoprovocation test indicate that he is at considerably higher risk for recurrent problems when subjected to the rigors of military operational environments.

Erroneous Enlistment is one that would not have occurred had the relevant facts been known by the Air Force and it was not the result of fraudulent conduct on the part of the member.  Thus, the BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted; however the Board may consider changing the narrative reason to "Failed medical/physical procurement standards" (SPD Code: JFW; with accompanying RE code of 4C).

The BCMR Medical Consultant's evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD recommended denial of applicants request to have his medical condition for asthma considered service-connected or aggravated by his military service and disapproval of the award of a disability discharge.  His military records revealed he was diagnosed with asthma shortly after entering technical training.  His asthma was considered to have existed prior to his entrance on active duty and not considered to have been service aggravated.  In February 2002, administrative discharge action was initiated due to continued respiratory problems.  The discharge action was found legally sufficient, approved by the discharge authority, and he was subsequently separated with an uncharacterized entry-level discharge.

The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPRS states that on 25 February 2002, the applicant acknowledged receipt of his notification for discharge and understood his right to consult with counsel and submit statements in his behalf.  He waived his right to consult with counsel and to submit statements.  Based upon the documentation on file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  Therefore, his uncharacterized character of service is correct and in accordance with Department of Defense and Air Force instructions.  An entry-level/uncharacterized separation should not be viewed as negative and should not be confused with other types of separations.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states he was sick with a bad case of bronchitis when he was tested for asthma.  He did not have asthma.  A number of other airmen in his dorm were also sick at the time.  Some were admitted to the hospital and allowed to recover while others were sent home with an "erroneous enlistment."  He was not given a chance to recover from the bronchitis.  The advisory states he was provided an opportunity to seek counsel but did not.  He was told by numerous individuals on the base, including his training officers, that seeking counsel would cause nothing but problems.  He was told he could not retrain, even though he qualified for numerous other jobs.  Applicant asks that he be allowed to be reexamined by a physician in Boston to see if he is able to return to the Air Force.

His complete submission is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 the case; however, it is our opinion that the reason and authority for his discharge were appropriate under the circumstances.  We find no evidence that a physical condition existed that would have warranted processing through the disability evaluation system in accordance with the governing instruction, which implements the law.  We agree with the BCMR Medical Consultant that under the circumstances of this case, the narrative reason "Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards" more appropriately reflects the reason for his discharge, and we note the correction has been administratively accomplished.  In view of the above, we find no compelling reason 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-2003-01556 in Executive Session on 31 Mar 04, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Sep 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 Sep 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 13 Jan 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Feb 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Feb 04.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Mar 04.

                                   Chair