RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00291
INDEX CODE:  110.02
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  15 July 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be granted a medical waiver and be allowed to re-enter the Air Force.  

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She disclosed her diagnosis of eczema in 1989 when she first enlisted in the Air Force, and served for six years.  Her current disqualification for the same defect should be waived to allow her to re-enter the Air Force.  

In support of her appeal, the applicant submits personal statements; and copies of medical evaluations; DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; congressional correspondence concerning her appeal; and her military service enlistment denial letter.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served on active duty in the Regular Air Force from 9 May 1989 to 13 March 1995 as an Aerospace Ground Equipment Journeyman.  She was progressively promoted to the rank of senior airman effective 9 May 1992.  She received four Enlisted Performance Reports between the period 9 May 1989 through 2 May 1994 with promotion recommendations of 4, 5, 5, and 5.  On 13 March 1995, she was released from active duty for intradepartmental transfer to the Air Force Reserve Non-obligated, Non-participating, Reserve Personnel Section, with an honorable characterization of service.  She served five years, ten months, and five days on active duty.  On 7 October 1999, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve.  

Following her physical to re-enter the military, a Report of Medical Examination, dated 18 April 2002, reflected the applicant was disqualified for enlistment into the Air Force based on her history of eczema.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/SGPS recommends the applicant’s request be denied.  SGPS states that although the applicant enlisted in the Air Force following her enlistment physical on 23 February 1989, her medical defect should have rendered her disqualified for military service at the time of her examination and still today.  Her condition is unpredictable in its recurrence and severity and could flair-up at any time, any place, requiring treatment, or hospitalization to control, and in today’s world environment the military cannot afford to take this chance.  The applicant notes she was granted a “waiver” for the defect, but in fact there was no waiver granted and it appears the notation was missed by the Military Examination Processing Service (MEPS) medical officer, and he qualified her for military service.  The same disqualifying defect was again noted on her February 2002 medical examination for enlistment. As required, her case was sent to HQ Air Education and Training Command (AETC) Physical Standards Branch for review and waiver.  Individuals who separate from the Air Force and apply to re-enter within 180 days are considered under “Retention” standards.  Those who have been out for over 180 days, as in the applicant’s case, are considered under “Accession” standards.  Under this criteria and because of her medical diagnosis, and the unpredictability of her medical condition, she was certified medically disqualified for military service.   The AETC/SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states her eczema has never been severe.  She has lived in different climates and has never had her eczema prevent her from doing her job.  When she went to the recruiter to reenlist, it was not the fact that she had eczema, but the medication that was prescribed to her by the military to treat the eczema, that prevented her enlistment.  She has not used this or any medication to treat her eczema for over two years.  The applicant’s rebuttal is at Exhibit D.   

_________________________________________________________________

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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  While the applicant’s patriotism and willingness to once again serve her country is commendable, we note that the Service Secretaries are charged with maintaining a fit and vital force.  Medical standards ensuring accession of healthy members with a low risk for medical problems that may interfere with performance of military duties have been developed over time based on decades of experience and are appropriately updated.  Mechanisms are in place to grant waivers for individual cases when the best interest of the Air Force will be served.  We note the applicant’s assertion that she received a waiver for her medical condition when she entered active duty on 9 May 1989; however, according to the Air Force office of primary responsibility, she did not receive a waiver.  Her accession to active duty was an oversight because her medical condition was disqualifying for military duty then, as it is now.  The applicant has not provided evidence to the contrary.  Furthermore, it is our opinion the fact an error occurred at the time she initially entered the service does not mandate a finding she should now be permitted to enlist despite the service’s knowledge of her disqualifying condition.  Based on the above comments, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request 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 this application in Executive Session on 30 June 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-00291 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Jan 05, with attachments.
	Exhibit B.  Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 15 Feb 05.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Feb 05.
	Exhibit D.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 12 Mar 05.

						
									Panel Chair