RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01041
		INDEX CODE:  110.02
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx	COUNSEL: NONE 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her uncharacterized entry-level separation be changed to an honorable discharge and her narrative reason for separation be changed to a medical discharge or for the convenience of the government.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was incorrectly discharged after being told she had a preexisting medical condition of asthma.  The medical condition was not a factor prior to her entering the Air Force.

In support of her request, the applicant submits a personal statement, DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Rating Decision, dated 30 December 2003, and DVA Rating Decision, dated 17 December 2003.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on 9 July 2002, for a term of 4 years.  

On 15 October 2002, the applicant was notified by her commander that he was recommending that she be discharged from the Air Force for erroneous enlistment.  The basis for the action was that on 2 October 2002, she was diagnosed as having asthma.  It was determined this condition existed prior to service and was not permanently aggravated by service.

She was advised of her rights in this matter and after consulting with counsel submitted a statement requesting retraining in lieu of discharge.  The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation.  The discharge authority approved the discharge of erroneous entry and ordered an uncharacterized entry-level separation.  On 21 November 2002, she was administratively discharged with an uncharacterized entry-level separation, under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airman, (Erroneous Enlistment).  She received a RE code of 2C ”Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service.”  She served 4 months and 13 days total active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The applicant was administratively discharged with an entry-level separation for a chronic obstructive lung disease that was felt to be severe persistent asthma.  Due to the mild nature of her symptoms, essentially cough, the limited reversibility with bronchodilator medication, and the severe obstructive defect found, her obstructive lung disease had been present for many years and did not develop in the short period of time she was on active duty.  Although her history of bronchopulmonary dysplasia complicating her premature birth was noted by her physicians, the significance of this history was apparently not known to them.  

Bronchopulmonary dysplasia is a chronic lung disease that often develops after mechanical ventilation in prematurely born infants with respiratory failure (due to hyaline lung disease).  Although often asymptomatic, most adolescents and young adults who were born prematurely with hyaline lung disease and developed secondary bronchopulmonary dysfunction demonstrate residual chronic airways obstruction, and varying degrees of reactive airways disease (bronchoconstriction manifesting as cough, wheezing, shortness of breath and partial reversibility of obstruction with bronchodilator medication on lung testing).  This occurs in the absence of allergic disease or a demonstrated family history of asthma.  Such individuals are also at increased risk for the development of asthma.  The applicant’s clinical history as recorded in the service medical records and her pulmonary function testing is completely consistent with the chronic residuals of bronchopulmonary dysfunction incurred as a premature infant.  New or recent onset asthma with the pulmonary function testing abnormalities shown would manifest clinically with dramatically worse symptoms and physical examination findings.  The reviewer concludes that the applicant’s chronic lung disease existed prior to service and was not permanently aggravated by service and did not warrant referral into the disability evaluation system.  

The applicant provides as evidence a DVA rating decision granting service-connected compensation for asthma.  Operating under different laws with a different purpose, determinations made by the DOD under Title 10 and the DVA under Title 38 are not binding on the other.  The preponderance of the evidence and accepted medical principles shows that the applicant’s lung condition existed prior to service and was not permanently aggravated by service.

Airmen are in entry-level status during the first 180 days of continuous active military service and if administratively separated during this period receive an entry-level separation.  This discharge does not attempt to characterize the type of service as either good or bad.  It is possible for an individual to receive a discharge with characterization of service.  An honorable characterization is given by the Secretary of the Air Force when it is clearly warranted by unusual circumstances of personal conduct and performance of military duty.  Erroneous enlistment is one 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.

Action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that she has no comments regarding the medical explanation.  Her purpose of the application is based on the type of separation she received.  She doesn’t feel that an erroneous enlistment separation is in order in this case.  She states that she held nothing back from the Air Force when she enlisted, did her best to stay on active duty and the time she spent on active duty was served honorably in nature.

She was not aware of the nature of her childhood breathing problems and no problems were detected during the enlistment process.  Whether or not military service did or did not make her condition worse is not clear, but it wasn’t until she was put through military training that her breathing conditions presented itself.  

The applicant requests her discharge be changed to honorable and that the narrative reason for separation be changed to convenience of the government.  She believes the circumstances that occurred were not her fault and believes the time she spent in the Air Force was served honorably.  She further states that when applying for employment and a review of her discharge is conducted, a dark cloud appears over the wording of uncharacterized and erroneous enlistment.  She concludes by saying she sees no harm or cost to the government in approving her request.  It will simply correct an unpleasant situation.

Her complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.  Based on the evidence of record, the majority of the Board is persuaded that the applicant’s chronic lung disease existed prior to service, was not permanently aggravated by service and did not warrant referral into the disability evaluation system.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case, however; the majority of the Board agrees with the opinions and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In view of the above, the majority of the Board finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2004-01041 in Executive Session on 13 January 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the application.  Ms. XXXXX voted to correct the records but does not wish to submit a Minority Report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 6 Apr 04, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 13 Dec 04.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Dec 04.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Dec 04.