RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03839
INDEX CODE:  110.02
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE
AKA: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  22 August 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be reinstated in the Air Force.  

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her discharged for asthma was erroneous.  

In support of her appeal, the applicant submits a personal statement, copies of medical evaluations, and a utilization questionnaire signed by her commander.   The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 24 June 1998, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 17 in the grade of airman first class (E-3) for a period of four years.  Following her completion of basic training, she was trained and served as a Personnel Apprentice.  

On 14 November 1999, the applicant was honorably released from active duty under the provisions for pregnancy/childbirth and administratively transferred to the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC).  She served 1 year, 4 months and 21 days on active duty.  On 4 June 2001, the applicant volunteered for a Reserve assignment as a supply management helper in a civil engineering squadron at Charleston AFB, SC.  

In March 2004, AFRC/SGPA determined the applicant was medically unfit for continued Reserve duty.  The applicant requested a fitness determination by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  On 6 May 2004, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) performed a fitness determination only, concluding the applicant was unfit for continued military duty due to asthma.  AFPC Disability Branch records indicate the applicant concurred with the determination of the IPEB on 20 July 2004.  The applicant was administratively discharge on 8 October 2004 from the Air Force Reserve due to medical disqualification.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the applicant’s records is warranted.  A review of the service medical records show the applicant reported a history of asthma as a child, was treated for “asthma symptoms” as an adult by her family physician, continued to posses an inhaler in November 2002, and was diagnosed with “asthma that is limited to strenuous exercise” by a lung specialist and allergic rhinitis. Her medical records also indicate that the applicant  reported a history of asthma as a child on Dental Patient Medical History forms following entry onto active and Reserve duty, but failed to report this history on enlistment medical examination in August 1997 and June 2001.  She was treated for an episode of shortness of breath with an inhaler by her family physician in March 2000 but, again failed to report this at the time of a medical examination in June 2001 prior to reentering duty with the Reserves.

The BCMR Medical Consultant states the applicant’s medical history indicates she is an unacceptable risk for unpredictable recurrent problems when subjected to the rigors of the military operational environments.  It is the BCMR Medical consultant’s opinion that action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.  

The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  DPPD states her commander did not recommend the applicant for retention because she was non-deployable.  While the applicant states she did not receive notification of this action, automated records at HQ Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) reflect the applicant concurred with the Fitness Determination on 20 July 2004.

DPPD states the preponderance of evidence reflects no error or injustice occurred during the disability process and at the time of separation.  The DPPD evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 28 April 2006 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no 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.  We note the applicant’s assertion that she was erroneously discharged because she does not have asthma; however, according to the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, her medical condition was disqualifying for military duty then, as it is now.  Neither does the record reveal nor has the applicant provided any evidence that would lead us to believe that she was physically fit within the meaning of the governing regulation, which implements the law, to return her to active service.  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.  Based on the above comments, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force offices 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 20 June 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-03839 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Feb 05, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 25 Apr 06.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 19 May 05, w/atchs.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Apr 06.