RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01008 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Her narrative reason for separation (Erroneous Entry) be changed. 2. Her Reentry (RE) code of 2C (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service) be changed. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was discharged because she did not disclose that she had asthma. However, she never had asthma nor has she ever been diagnosed with asthma. She would like her reason for separation and her RE code changed so that she can reenlist in the military. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 30 Aug 12, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of six years. On 9 Feb 12, the squadron commander notified the applicant of administrative discharge action for erroneous enlistment. The specific reason for the proposed action was based on a Standard Form 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 18 Jan 12, which indicated the applicant should not have been able to join the Air Force because of reactive airway disease. If the relevant facts of this medical condition had been made known to the Air Force, she would have not been permitted to join. The commander recommended an entry level separation. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification, waived her right to consult counsel and to submit statements in her own behalf. The assistant staff judge advocate found the case file legally sufficient to support separation. On 15 Feb 12, the discharge authority approved the entry level separation. The applicant’s DD Form 214, Certification for Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with her 21 Feb 12 entry level separation, reflects she received a reason for separation of “Erroneous Entry,” with an RE code of 2C. She was credited with 5 months and 22 days of active duty service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the type of separation, narrative reason for separation, separation code and the character of service was appropriately administered and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant has not provided any evidence that an error or injustice occurred in the processing of her discharge. DPSOR notes the medical authorities concluded that the applicant had a pre-existing medical condition that would have precluded her from enlisting in the Air Force had this condition been made known in advance. Hence, both the commander and the discharge authority correctly concluded the discharge was in order. The discharge was in accordance with the discharge instruction. The applicant's service characterization is also correct as reflected on her DD Form 214. Airmen 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, the uncharacterized service on her DD Form 214 is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions. The complete DPOSR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change her RE code. RE code 2C is required based on the applicant's involuntary discharge with uncharacterized service and the applicant does not provide any evidence of an error or injustice in reference to her RE code. The complete DPOSA evaluation is at Exhibit D. AETC/SGPS recommends approval. Based on the documentation on file in the applicant’s records; they found the separation was done in accordance with established policy and administrative procedures. However, if the applicant meets accession standards, they could support her requests. SGPS states a review of the applicant’s records and medical notes from the Wilford Hall Medical Center (WHMC) indicated the applicant had some chest pain and trouble breathing during Basic Military Training (BMT). She was evaluated by cardiology and pulmonary medicine and it was determined she had reactive airway disease which was disqualifying for military service and she would be processed for an entry level separation. She did not wish to pursue a medical waiver. She stated she understood the diagnoses and treatment plan and was subsequently processed for an entry level separation. The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit E. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical Consultant indicates that he was not supplied the service medical documentation to challenge or refute the diagnostic conclusions reached by military medical officials and wishes to inform the applicant and the Board that asthma is disqualifying for service reentry, with some exceptions. DoD Instruction 6130.03, Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction in the Military Services, outlines the policy under heading Lungs, Chest Wall, Pleura and Mediastinum which explains disqualifying conditions and the exception in the following: “Airway hyper-responsiveness including asthma (493.xx), reactive airway disease, exercise-induced bronchospasm (519.11) or asthmatic bronchitis (493.90), reliably diagnosed and symptomatic after the 13th birthday” is disqualifying. The Medical Consultant acknowledged the normal baseline pulmonary function study supplied by the applicant. However, this does not eliminate the possible existence of airway hyperresponsiveness via Methacholine challenge testing and exercise tolerance testing; the latter test to expose possible exercise-induced reactive airway disease. The resting pulmonary function studies are inadequate in ruling out the applicant's predisposition for an unexpected acute exacerbation of her medical condition; which would pose an unreasonable and serious health and mission risk should she experience a recurrence without ready access to proper intervention. This is particularly relevant in the context of the operational environments and physical challenges confronting all members of today's military; and sparing no particular service component or career field. The Medical Consultant lauds the applicant's desire to serve, but she has not met the burden of proof of error or injustice that warrants the desired change to the record. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit F. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 12 Nov 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit G). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 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. After carefully reviewing the evidence in this case, we do not believe that relief is warrant. We note SG’s states they could support the applicant’s request if she meets accession standards, however, we agree with the opinions and recommendation of DPSOR and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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-2014-01008 in Executive Session on 20 Jan 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Mar 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 15 Apr 14. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 21 May 14. Exhibit E. Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 16 Jun 14. Exhibit F. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 10 Oct 14. Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Nov 14.