RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:			   DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00218
						   INDEX CODE: 110.02
    xxxxxxxxxxx		   COUNSEL:  NONE

    xxxxxxxx			   HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for her separation and her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed so she may reenlist.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was discharged from the Air Force for asthma.  An exam conducted by a specialist after her discharge, found she had no traces of asthma past or present.  She has no trouble breathing or exercising.  

In support of her request, she submits a letter from her allergist and asthma testing documents.  Her submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 4 March 2003.  On 13 February 2003, the applicant completed a Report of Medical History in which she indicated never having asthma or shortness of breath. 

On 17 March 2003, during a medical consultation by the Department of Allergy/Immunology, the attending physician made an assessment that the applicant’s asthma was exercise induced.  On 10 December 2001, the applicant was placed on Temporary Duty Restriction and prescribed an inhaler. 

On 21 March 2003, in accordance with AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.14, Erroneous Enlistment, the commander initiated discharge proceedings against the applicant.  The commander indicated that the applicant did not meet minimum medical standards to enlist and should not have been allowed to join the Air Force because of asthma.  The applicant was advised of her rights in this matter.  The applicant waived her right to counsel and to submit statements in her behalf.  On 24 March 2003, the discharge authority directed that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force with an entry-level separation.  Accordingly, applicant was discharged on 26 March 2003 by reason of “Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards” with a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “4C.”  She had served 23 days on active duty. 

Examiner’s Note:  An RE code of “4C, Separated for concealment of juvenile records, minority, or failure to meet physical standards for enlistment…” renders her ineligible for immediate reenlistment, but eligible for prior service enlistment with an approved waiver.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied.  The Medical Consultant indicates that 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 for enlistment.  Although the applicant may not have asthma in the strictest definition, but was diagnosed with abnormal bronchial hyper-reactivity consistent with asthma or reactive airways disease based on bronchoprovocation testing with inhaled histamine.  The BCMR Medical Consultant states that the applicant’s experience during training and her positive histamine bronchoprovocation test indicate that she is at considerably higher risk for recurrent problems when subjected to the rigors of military operational environments.  The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 18 November 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment.  As of this date, this office has not received a 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.  After careful review of the applicant’s submission, we found no evidence to indicate her discharge from the Air Force was inappropriate or unjust.  Applicant contends she has no trouble breathing or exercising and the exam conducted by an allergy specialist after her discharge, found she had no traces of asthma past or present.  However, we do not find these arguments, in and of themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale expressed by the BCMR Medical Consultant.  Although the applicant is presently doing well as indicated by a recent allergy evaluation, the record clearly shows she was experiencing physical problems while in training and her symptoms, suggestive of asthma or reactive airways disease, required her separation from the Air Force at that time.  Therefore, we agree with the findings and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  We note the applicant’s reenlistment eligibility code “4C” is a waiverable code and if she wishes to reenter military service, her RE code can be waived depending upon the needs of the service to which she applies.  Therefore, in view of the above and 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 Docket Number BC-2004-00218 in Executive Session on 1 February 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Jan 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated
                16 Nov 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Nov 04.

                                   Panel Chair