RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-00916
		INDEX CODE: 112.10
 	XXXXXXX				COUNSEL:  NONE
			  		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His reentry (RE) code of “2C” which denotes "Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” be changed. 

2.  His narrative reason for separation "Erroneous Entry" be changed.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of his discharge he did not understand what erroneous entry meant.  He did not wrongfully enter the military and has proof he never had asthma and does not have it now.  He wants to reenlist in the Navy and needs his discharge corrected in order to serve his country.  The pulmonary tests prove nothing is wrong with his lungs and he does not have asthma.  He is more than qualified and is working with Navy recruiters.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of a pulmonary report. 

His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 22 September 2004 in the grade of airman basic.  

On 10 March 2005, he was notified by his commander that he was recommending his discharge for erroneous enlistment.  The specific reason for this action was he was diagnosed with asthma.  This condition existed prior to service and was not permanently aggravated by service.  

On 10 March 2005, he was advised of his right to consult counsel and submit statements on his own behalf, given the opportunity to consult military legal counsel and notified that this action may result in his discharge from the Air Force with an entry-level separation.
On 18 March 2005, he was discharged in the grade of airman basic with uncharacterized service.

He served 5 months and 27 days on active duty.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of his request to change his RE code.  DPSOA states a review of the applicant's records reveals his commander recommended his discharge for erroneous enlistment.  He waived his right to submit a statement and also waived his option to counsel.  On 17 March 2005, the discharge authority directed his discharge.  DPSOA finds no evidence of error or injustice.  RE code “2C” is correct for this type of discharge.  

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of his request to change his narrative reason for separation.  DPSOS states it is unclear from the documentation within the discharge package whether the applicant was diagnosed with asthma prior to entry onto active duty.  However, the chronological record of medical care form indicates he did not see a civilian provider or receive treatment for asthma prior to his current enlistment.  Notwithstanding the absence of pre-enlistment documents, the basis for discharge under erroneous enlistment has been met.  The Air Force took the appropriate action regardless of whether the Air Force had prior knowledge of the pre-existing medical condition.  A review of his records also reveals he received three non-academic letters of counseling and four letters of reprimand.  Although the commander did not elect to pursue, it appears there was sufficient basis for discharge for entry-level performance and conduct.  The applicant claims he never had asthma and submits a pulmonary function report as evidence to support his claim.  DPSOS defers to the Board or qualified medical professional as to whether the report provides merit to his petition. Airmen are given entry-level separation and uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of 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, his 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 EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 1 August 2008 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit E).

________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The Medical Consultant states many individuals with a predisposition for asthma may not be aware of the condition until subjected to certain physical and/or environmental factors, e.g., sustained physical exertion, that otherwise would have gone unnoticed during the period predating an individual's entry to military service.  This phenomenon is commonly encountered by recruits during the sustained running activities of Basic Military Training, although many attest to their participation in sports activities in the past without difficulty.  The record does not specifically reflect he experienced an exercise-induced asthma attack during his military service; it remains a leading reason for an initial investigation of the condition.  In the case under review, his 79% drop in FEV-1 (The amount of air that you can forcibly blow out in one second) following introduction of methacholine represents a significant reduction in respiratory function that, under the right set of circumstances, could place his life and the mission of his organization in peril, if unable to gain prompt access to proper treatment.  The Medical Consultant finds this factor a particularly important consideration under the austere operational conditions and physical stressors confronting all members of today's deployable forces; sparing no particular military department, component, or duty title.  Although he has demonstrated a normal baseline respiratory function, which did not change significantly following use of a bronchodilator, it cannot be inferred his functioning will remain normal upon exposure to a particular allergen or other circumstances.  Individuals who were found unable to complete the requirements of military service due to a condition discovered so soon (less than 180 days) after entering military service, such that it would have disqualified the applicant for entry to military service were it known sooner, are separated as an erroneous entry.  Such a designation is not an indictment upon his integrity or truthfulness at the time of his acceptance into military service, but one that has been validated through objective testing and sound medical principles.  

The complete Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 13 June 2008 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit G).

______________________________________________________________

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 to warrant changing his RE code or narrative reason for separation.  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 Air Force offices of primary responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  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 issues 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 the application.

_______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2008-00916 in Executive Session on 16 September 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			XXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
			XXXXXXXXXX, Member
XXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2008-00916 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 February 2008, w/atch. 
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOA, dated 14 March 2008.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOS, dated 21 April 2008.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 June 2008.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 28 July 2008.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 August 2008.

                                   XXXXXXXXXX
                                   Panel Chair