RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00280 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect an Honorable Discharge for medical reasons, instead of an entry-level separation (ELS) with uncharacterized service. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He developed a medical (lung) condition while stationed in Texas which caused him to have panic attacks and anxiety disorder due to difficulty breathing. He was not properly diagnosed; he was always checked for a heart condition, never a lung condition. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 28 Jan 14. On 14 Apr 14, the applicant scored 54% with a minimum of 70% needed to pass EMT Unit 1A test. This was his first failure. Subsequently, he was counseled and placed on academic probation. He was scheduled to attend study halls and night study. On 15 Apr 14, the Academic Oversight Board (AOB) was convened to review the applicant’s records, counseling, remediation information to determine whether to (a) Remediate, but remain in current class, (b) Recycle to another class, (c) Relief from the program. On 17 Apr 14, the applicant failed (52%, min 70% needed to pass) his retest of EMT Mod Unit 1B. On 18 Apr 14, he was recycled from class 125B to class 130, received continued counseling on exam preparation and expectations, and retaught the EMT Unit material. On 28 Apr 14, the applicant scored a 62%, with a minimum of 70% needed to pass EMT Unit 3A test. This was his third test failure. The instructor discussed his need to ask questions during lectures, activities, and even during the test for clarification. On 12 May 14, he failed (66%, min 70% needed to pass) the EMT Unit 5A test, for his fourth test failure. The instructor noted he had shown improvement by asking questions during class and during the test. On 13 May 14, he scored 54% with minimum of 70% needed to pass EMT Unit 5B test. This was his fifth test failure. On 14 May 14, the AOB recommended he be relieved from the 4N0X1 course (Basic Medical Technician Corpsman Program), as a result of his five test failures. On 27 May 14, the Medical Education and Training Campus (METC) Dean concurred with the applicant’s disenrollment from the 4N0X1 course due to academic failure. On 4 Jun 14, the 383 TRS Section Commander notified the applicant she was recommending his discharge for failure to make satisfactory progress in a required training program. The applicant acknowledged the Section Commander’s recommendation for discharge, consulted counsel, and waived his right to submit statements. On 12 Jun 14, the base Judge Advocate reviewed the proposed discharge action and found the basis, service characterization, and probation/rehabilitation recommendations were supported by the evidence. On 16 Jun 14, the 383 TRS/CC recommended the applicant’s discharge for entry level performance or conduct; specifically, failure to make satisfactory progress in a required training program, the authority being AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations, and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen. On 19 Jun 14, the discharge authority approved the administrative separation of the applicant, directing that the applicant be separated with an entry level separation (ELS). On 23 Jun 14, the applicant was furnished an ELS discharge, with uncharacterized service, and was credited with 4 months, and 26 days of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), and the AFBCMR Medical Consultant which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the SPD code, narrative reason for separation and character of service was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant failed to make satisfactory progress in the Basic Medical Technician/Corpsman Program (BMTCP). The record shows that the applicant was given every opportunity to overcome his academic deficiencies. The applicant was washed back in training once, placed on academic probation, counseled numerous times regarding exam preparation and expectations, and he received specialized individual assistance. None of these efforts met with success, and the commander concluded that his unsatisfactory performance or conduct showed that he was not qualified to be a productive member of the Air Force. In their opinion, the SPD code and narrative reason for separation are correct as indicated on his DD Form 214. The applicant’s service characterization is also correct as indicated on his DD Form 214. Airmen are given Entry-level separation (ELS)/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. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant alleges that an undiagnosed medical condition was the cause of service termination and that an Honorable discharge was appropriate. However, there is very limited supportive evidence to support this claim. Records for this appeal indicate the applicant received a cardiopulmonary evaluation while on active duty which was normal. Following the evaluation, there was no requirement for ongoing medical care or complaints of any mental health symptoms during the term of service. There was no supportive medical documentation of any anxiety symptoms or panic attacks during the term of service. The Medical Consultant did acknowledge post-service medical information provided by the applicant. However, this documentation is insufficient to establish the presence of a medical condition of such severity to terminate military service. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Through the Director of his local Veterans Affairs chapter, the applicant asks the Board to review letters from two doctors opining that his medical condition (lung disease) developed during basic training while on active duty, and request the Board find these medical opinions sufficient to upgrade discharge to Honorable, for medical reasons. The two letters are attached to the Director’s cover letter. A complete copy of the Applicant’s response is at Exhibit F. 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. 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 office of primary responsibility (OPR) and the AFBCMR Medical Consultant, and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Specifically, we note the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s determination that there was no supportive medical documentation of any anxiety symptoms or panic attacks during the applicant’s term of service. The Medical Consultant did acknowledge post-service medical information provided by the applicant; however, this documentation was insufficient to establish the presence of a medical condition of such severity to terminate military service. 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-2015-00280 in Executive Session on 10 Dec 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00280 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Jan 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 4 Feb 15. Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated   17 Sep 15. Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Sep 15. Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 29 Oct 15.