RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00641 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reason for separation (Erroneous Enlistment (Medical Conditions)) along with the corresponding Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of “J95” be changed; and that his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) status of “Ineligible” be changed to “Eligible.” ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His diagnosis of asthma that subsequently led to his separation was inaccurate. He does not have asthma. His Air Force medical records, from 2003 to 2005, showed no asthma but rather an acute sinusitis. He was treated and found fit for duty, passed all the tests; however, due to the write-up, he is unable to reenlist. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his NGB Form 22, NGB Report of Separation and Record of Service, issued in conjunction with his 19 May 06 separation and other supporting documents from his master personnel record. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant, a member of the Illinois Air National Guard, was separated under the provisions of AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve, for an Erroneous Enlistment (Medical Condition). His service characterization was listed as entry level separation. He was credited with 3 years, 9 months, and 9 days, of service for pay. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PS recommends denial. A1PS notes according to the NGB Form 22 provided, the applicant was separated in accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members, with the reason listed as "Erroneous Enlistment (Medical Conditions).” This governing authority states that "A member may be discharged based on an erroneous enlistment, reenlistment, or extension of enlistment. An enlistment, reenlistment, or extension is erroneous if it should not have been accepted by the Air Force, but does not involve fraud. This separation is also characterized as an "Entry Level Separation" the definition of which can be found and described as "Discharge from entry level status without service characterization. This is complete severance from all military status gained by the enlistment or induction concerned." Based on both the reason and characterization the applicant should have been officially notified concerning the separation action. It appears that the applicant would 1ike to reenlist in the service, and is seeking the changes to his NGB 22 for that reason. While we can appreciate his desire to serve, almost eight years have passed since his original enlistment and five years have passed since his separation. Since the applicant should have had an opportunity to address these concerns and explore his options prior to separation and since no evidence to substantiate an error or injustice occurred, A1PS recommends disapproval of the applicant's request. The complete NGB/A1PS evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial, stating, in part, that the applicant has not supplied evidence that he has not required use of controller or rescue medications or experienced an acute exacerbation of his condition within the past three years. The applicant denies a history of asthma prior to enlistment. The reviewer is unable to verify the applicant's claim without adequate historical documentation. This is important because there is insufficient medical evidence to invalidate the reason for separation based upon erroneous enlistment (medical condition). The reviewer concedes there is evidence that the member was being treated for recurring sinusitis and allergic rhinitis of which either condition may accompany a diagnosis of asthma. The reviewer acknowledges comments included in the specialist progress notes question the diagnosis of asthma. However, progress notes acknowledge clinical improvement with use of a bronchodilator which is commonly used to treat bronchospasms associated with asthma. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the applicant continued use of the bronchodilator for symptomatic relief after being transferred back to the unit physician for basic training clearance. The matter of an abnormal methacholine challenge test (MCT) in 2003 remains unresolved. There is no evidence that the MCT was repeated after treatment for sinusitis and allergic rhinitis to evaluate whether the abnormal result had resolved. In summary, based upon very limited medical evidence, there is insufficient evidence to clearly establish whether an error or injustice occurred regarding the diagnosis of asthma or whether the condition existed prior to entry into the military. Noting that six years have passed since the applicant's last pulmonary evaluation, the Consultant finds it inappropriate to recommend changing his re-entry code without more current clinical information to reflect the applicant health status. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluation were forwarded to the applicant on 5 Oct 11 for review and comment within 15 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). ________________________________________________________________ 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. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, the applicant’s case has undergone an exhaustive review by the National Guard Bureau office of primary responsibility and the BCMR Medical Consultant and we did not find the evidence provided, sufficient to overcome their assessment of the case. Therefore, we agree with their recommendations and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-00641 in Executive Session on 3 November 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Feb 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 23 Mar 11, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 22 Sep 11. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Oct 11. Panel Chair