RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03679 INDEX NUMBER: 145.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation be changed to reflect she was separated for medical reasons and her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed so she can pursue a commission in the Air Force. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation and characterization of discharge does not reflect she served honorably. The record does not reflect she was separated due to medical reasons which precluded her from completing technical training in her primary specialty of Security Forces. She was not offered training in an alternate career field. In support of her request, the applicant submits a copy of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, excerpts from her medical records dated 13 Dec 06 and 14 Nov 06, DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States, and AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, Table 3.2, Conditions Barring Immediate Reenlistment. Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 Nov 03, for a period of 4 years. On 22 Apr 04, she was notified by her commander that she was recommending that she be discharged from the Air Force for erroneous enlistment. The basis for the action was the SF 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 24 Mar 04, which indicated she was diagnosed with asthma. It was determined that her condition existed prior to service (EPTS) and was not permanently aggravated by service. Had the Air Force been aware of this condition prior to her enlistment she would have been ineligible for military service. She was advised of her rights, waived her right to consult counsel, and elected not to submit statements on her own behalf. The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support discharge. The discharge authority approved the discharge of erroneous entry and ordered an uncharacterized entry-level separation without probation or rehabilitation. On 5 May 04, she was administratively discharged with an uncharacterized entry-level separation, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, (Erroneous Entry). She received an RE code of 2C “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service”. She served 5 months and 12 days total active service. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial and states, in part, there is no error or injustice noted. A review of the applicant’s records revealed she was formally notified by her commander and approved for discharge due to an erroneous enlistment, specifically asthma. She was involuntarily discharged based on a medical condition that was determined to exist prior to service, as shown in her medical documentation. The complete DPSOA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial and indicates, that based upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. She provided no facts warranting a change to her narrative reason. Airman are given entry-level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days continuous active service. The Department of Defense (DoD) determined if a member served less than 180 days continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service. Therefore, her uncharacterized character of service is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The DD Form 149 she submitted on 30 Oct 07, should include treatment and separation due to asthma and bilateral stress fractures. The records appear to be incomplete. The records which do not appear in the advisory opinion are referred to in the DD Form 293, which was returned to her along with examination and treatment records. Post separation treatment records by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and disability adjudication for asthma rating and appeal adjudication for bilateral stress fractures were also submitted. The DD Form 293 she submitted should reflect a 10 percent service connected rating for asthma and she is appealing for a bilateral stress fractures decision. She believes it is imperative that the office of primary responsibility (OPR) should consider these records prior to submitting an opinion to the Board. The applicant’s response is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ _ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial and states, in part, that he finds no inequity or impropriety committed in the processing of the applicant’s discharge. He also recommends denial of her request to change her narrative reason for separation and RE code. The applicant has been diagnosed with a medical condition that is incompatible with the rigors of military service. Her asthma was diagnosed early following her entry on active duty, such that it was determined that her condition could not have first begun so soon after entering military service. Although it is conceivable that she could receive a waiver to re-enter military service, after showing radiographic evidence of healing of her stress fractures, it is more than likely that her co-morbid asthma diagnosis would supersede any considerations for returning her to military service. The BCMR Medical Consultant finds this particularly relevant in the context of the austere operational environments and extreme physical stressors confronting all members of today’s Air and Space Expeditionary Force. Further, her asthma would likely continue to prohibit her utilization as a Total Force asset, even if she is cross-trained into an alternate career field. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit G. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The entry level separation reenlistment code reflected on her DD Form 214, item 27 is “2C”, which is an erroneous enlistment. This is contrary according to the Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 24 Mar 04. That entry indicates she was processed for an administrative separation in lieu of a Medical Evaluation Board, and not the erroneous enlistment as reflected on her DD Form 214. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s opinion does not reflect any of this evidence. Also, the bilateral stress fractures were incurred in the line of duty (LOD). This fact is essential to the entitlement to a determination by a MEB, prior to the administrative discharge, which is based solely on the medical asthma that is just short of the 180 days of continuous active service. The non-applicability of a MEB is clearly an error or injustice, because it does not consider the LOD full extent of the medical injuries of the bilateral stress fractures that warranted early separation from active service, and the test results which indicate asthma. Hypothetically, if the bilateral stress fractures had been presented as incurred in the LOD, the active service time would have exceeded the 180 days and the Law under Title 10 would be applicable. However, the severity of the bilateral stress fractures incurred in the LOD being erroneously or unjustly left out of her medical records dated, 24 Mar 04, and the 17 Mar 08, Medical Consultant’s advisory opinion in this case is unfair. A determination that her stress fracture was in the LOD by the Air Force would restore her to the privileges and rights under the Law for early separation from active service due to medical reasons. The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit I. ________________________________________________________________ _ 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 to warrant changing her discharge characterization or her RE code. The Board notes the evidence of records shows that the applicant was separated from the Air Force for erroneous enlistment based on a diagnosis of asthma. Her condition was diagnosed within 180 days following her entry on active duty. As such, in accordance with Air Force instructions in effect at that time, it was determined that her condition existed prior to service and was not permanently aggravated by service. Further, we believe that the RE code that was assigned at the time of her separation accurately reflects the circumstances of her separation, and evidence has not been provided that would lead us to believe otherwise. 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 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. 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 issue(s) 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 this application in Executive Session on 10 Jul 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-03679: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Oct 07, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA, dated 27 Dec 07, w/atchs. Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOS, dated 28 Jan 08. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Feb 08. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 19 Feb 08. Exhibit G. BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 Mar 08. Exhibit H. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Mar 08. Exhibit I. Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Apr 08, w/atch.