RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00107 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His re-entry (RE) code 2Q (medically retired or discharged) be changed to RE code 3B (1st or 2nd term or career airman ineligible to reenlist, ineligibility condition no longer exists) or another RE code to allow reentry into the Air Force. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was not aware when discharged that a RE code 2Q would prevent him from returning to active duty in the air force. With changes regarding asthma, he feels that his RE code 2Q unjustly prevents him from being able to seek a commission in the air force as a judge advocate officer (JAG). He was diagnosed with exercise induced bronchospasm (EIB) or exercise induced asthma, although he has been physically active his entire life. He never had issues with performance or competing at a high level as a varsity football or track high school athlete. Also, he was able to complete basic training and technical training without incident, while exceeding fitness requirements. He believes that he was misdiagnosed because at no time during his service was there an issue with this condition or did it prevent him from completing his duties. Since his discharge he has remained physically fit and has maintained the same weight and body mass index (BMI) that he had at age 20. In 2007, he received a general schedule (GS) position that required regular strenuous work outside and a subsequent position in Japan. At no time did this condition impact his duties and he never had an asthma attack or crisis. He is capable of meeting the physical fitness standards needed to serve in the air force. Since his discharge, the Air Force’s eligibility requirements for those serving with this condition, or other pulmonary conditions, have allowed others to remain on or re-enter active duty service. At the time of his discharge, his primary care provider, supervisor, and the local medical board recommended that he be retained on active duty. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 21 September 2004. On 24 January 2006, an AF Form 422, Physical Profile Serial Report, was initiated that precluded the applicant from worldwide duty. He was placed on a “4T” profile that required a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). He was restricted from running, jogging, walking, marching and rucksack carrying. The expiration of his profile was 31 July 2006. On 25 January 2006, the applicant’s commander indicated the applicant’s medical condition did not interfere with his ability to perform his day-to-day duties, but did disqualify him from all mobility requirements. He recommended the applicant be retained. On 3 February 2006, a family practice physician initiated a prognosis of the applicant’s condition due to a recent diagnosis of exercise-induced asthma. He recommended the applicant be returned to duty since his condition was currently well-controlled with Albuterol and not impacting his ability to perform his daily duties. On 6 February 2006, a MEB convened to consider the applicant for continued active duty. The applicant was diagnosed with exercise-induced asthma with the approximate date of origin on 1 January 2004. The MEB recommended the applicant be returned to duty and referred to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). On 1 March 2006, an IPEB was convened which found the applicant unfit due to his medical condition not being compatible with the rigors of military service as evidenced by the long-term impact the condition’s limitations will have on his career progression and the inequities created in deployment/remote assignment obligations. The IPEB recommended he be discharged with entitlement to severance pay and a compensable disability rating of 10 percent. On 17 March 2006, the applicant concurred with the findings and recommended disposition of the IPEB and waived his right to a formal PEB hearing. On 20 March 2006, the Secretary of the Air Force directed the applicant to be separated from the Air Force for physical disability with entitlement to severance pay. On 19 April 2006, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge with a narrative reason for separation of “Disability, Severance Pay”, and issued an RE code of 2Q and SPD code of “JFL”. He was credited with 1 year, 6 months, and 29 days of total active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFD recommends denial. The preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the disability process and the RE code of 2Q is the correct re-enlistment code for a member who was approved for a medical separation. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. The applicant requested a change of RE code based on no longer having a medical condition which precludes his reentry into the air force. However, the applicant’s RE code 2Q is required based on his discharge currently being listed as a disability discharge. The requested RE code 3B clearly states airmen with this RE code will not be separated. Since the applicant received a disability discharge, the RE code 3B is not an option. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluation were forwarded to the applicant on 2 July 2015 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). 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 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 an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. While the applicant argues that he was mis-diagnosed during his service, that medical standards related to his diagnosis have changed, and that he is now capable of meeting said standards, other than his own assertions, he has provided no evidence whatsoever in support of these arguments. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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 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-2015-00107 in Executive Session on 20 August 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 January 2015, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPFD, dated 4 February 2015. Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 26 May 2015. Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 July 2015.