RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02092
		INDEX NUMBER:  108.00
	XXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His entry-level separation be changed to a medical discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was in good physical condition when he joined the Air Force.  He should be given a medical discharge based on his entry-level separation for failed medical and physical procurement standards.

When he completed his medical history form for enlistment, he reported to personnel at the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) that he had had bronchitis and not asthma.  He was told to check yes to bronchitis.

When he got sick at basic military training (BMT), he was advised that he had asthma and should not have been cleared at the MEPS.  He was placed on medical hold.  He was on medical hold for about two months and his condition never improved.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of medical documents from his private physicians.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 12 Nov 02.  On 8 Jan 03, his training squadron (TRS) commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for erroneous enlistment.  The reason for his recommendation was that the applicant’s medical narrative summary, dated 13 Dec 02, found that he did not meet the minimum medical standards to enlist.  He should not have been allowed to join the Air Force due to asthma.  The applicant responded to the notification on 8 Jan 03, waived his right to counsel, and waived his right to submit statements in his behalf.  He also acknowledged that he would not be entitled to any disability, retirement, or severance pay if discharged for the reasons cited.  On 8 Jan 03, the TRS commander recommended to the training group commander that the applicant be discharged.  On 9 Jan 03, the training wing judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended to the training group commander that the applicant be discharged with an entry-level separation.  The training group commander approved the applicant’s discharge on 10 Jan 03.  He was discharged on 14 Jan 03 for failed medical physical procurement standards.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  Evidence of the record shows the applicant experienced recurrent bronchitis and two weeks of starting basic training, the applicant was experiencing symptoms consistent with asthma.  Medical standards for enlistment (and for continued service) indicate that asthma, including reactive airways disease, exercise induced bronchospasm or asthmatic bronchitis, reliably diagnosed at any age is disqualifying for enlistment.  The applicant clearly had a history of reactive airways disease existing prior to service.  It is common for the physical stress of basic training to transiently aggravate symptoms of chronic asthma.  The applicant’s existing prior to service condition was not caused or permanently aggravated by service.  This condition did not entitle him to disability benefits.  None of the other conditions documented in the applicant’s records would have entitled him to disability benefits.

Airmen are in entry-level status during the first 180 days of continuous service and if administratively separated during this period receive an uncharacterized discharge.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  Based on the evidence of record, the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of applicable regulations.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices in the discharge process.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response, the applicant emphasizes that he is still requesting a medical discharge.  He states that he did not have any knee problems or hand discomfort prior to basic training.  He states that he was a member of the marching band for seven years and never missed a day.

Included in the applicant’s response are comments from his mother.  She states that when she sent her son to the Air Force he did not have any type of pain, nor did he have sores on the back of his neck, walk with a cane, or have pains in his hands.  Her son informed the recruiters that he had bronchitis, but was still encouraged to enlist.  He also passed the physical exam at the MEPS.  She requested her son’s records from both pediatricians and for the first time saw the word Asthmatic Bronchitis, which was never told to her.  She was not aware that her son had asthma until she had him tested after his return from the Air Force.  She opines that the only erroneous enlistment was the recruiter encouraging her son to enlist, knowing his condition.

The applicant’s complete response 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 error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  We note that the applicant appears to believe that his discharge on the basis of erroneous enlistment is incorrect and infers that he lied or falsified documents to gain entry into the Air Force.  This is not the meaning of erroneous enlistment, but fraudulent enlistment, which was not used in the applicant’s case.  Discharge on the basis of erroneous enlistment means that the applicant’s enlistment was an error caused either by the Air Force not having all of the information they needed or their failure to take the correct action.  It appears to us in this case that the Air Force failed to take the correct action under the circumstances.  The applicant should have never been allowed to enlist.  However, since the error did occur, the action to discharge him based on an erroneous enlistment is correct.  We also took note of the medical problems the applicant claims to have developed during his time in the Air Force.  He has not submitted sufficient evidence to support his claims and we find it improbable that his medical problems are due to the short period of time he was in the Air Force.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number BC-2003-02092 in Executive Session on 21 January 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Jun 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant,
                dated 10 Nov 03.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Dec 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Dec 03.