RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2021-00093

xxxxxxxxxxxxx	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING REQUESTED: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

His “Uncharacterized” Entry Level Separation (ELS) be upgraded to a medical discharge.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

He was infected with the COVID-19 virus in basic military training (BMT) which led to his dyspnea and bronchospasms during physical conditioning.  These new health issues impacted his physical ability to complete BMT which resulted in his ELS.  He did not have any preexisting pulmonary issues prior to the COVID infection which is evident on his medical exam prior to his enlistment.  These medical issues occurred while he was on active duty but he was discharged without going through the Disability Evaluation System (DES) process. 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a former Air Force airman basic (E-1). 

On 19 Nov 20, the applicant’s commander recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.14, for erroneous enlistment.  The specific reasons for the action were as follows:

a.	Dated 6 Nov 20, Trainee Medical Waiver Request for Military Service indicates the applicant’s request for a medical waiver was declined noting the applicant is disqualified for military service due to a history of airway hyper responsiveness which was noted after the 13th birthday.  All asthma or other forms of airway hyper responsiveness are considered existed prior to service (EPTS).

On 19 Nov 20, the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge action legally sufficient.

On 23 Nov 20, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged for erroneous enlistment, with an ELS.  
On 23 Nov 20, the applicant received an uncharacterized, entry level separation.  His narrative reason for separation is “Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards.”  He was credited with 2 months and 16 days of total active service.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY/GUIDANCE

According to AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, incorporating changes through 8 Jun 17, paragraph 1.18, the types of service characterization are as follows: 

Honorable.  The quality of the airman’s service generally has met Air Force standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty or when a member's service is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate. 

Under Honorable Conditions (General).  If an airman’s service has been honest and faithful, this characterization is warranted when significant negative aspects of the airman's conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the airman's military record.

Under Other than Honorable Conditions.  When basing the reason for separation on a pattern of behavior or one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of airmen.  The member must have an opportunity for a hearing by an administrative discharge board or request discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  

Entry Level Separation.  Airmen are in entry level status during the first 180 days of continuous active military service or the first 180 days of continuous active military service after a break of more than 92 days of active service.  Determine the member's status by the date of notification; thus, if the member is in entry level status when initiating the separation action, describe it as an entry level separation unless: 

•	A service characterization of under other than honorable conditions is authorized under the reason for discharge and is warranted by the circumstances of the case; or 

•	The Secretary of the Air Force determines, on a case-by-case basis, that characterization as honorable is clearly warranted by unusual circumstances of personal conduct and performance of military duty.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The AFBCMR Medical Advisor recommends denying the application finding insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s contentions.  Reactive airway disease (RADS) is a somewhat controversial and poorly understood condition produced by inhalational injury from gas, vapors, or fumes.  These hyperactive airways in many ways mimic asthma-like symptoms, but appear unresponsive to asthma treatments; as noted here in this case during the performance of the pulmonary function test.  Despite having no adverse physical symptoms either prior to COVID-19 screening or throughout the complete period of isolation, the possibility, and low probability, of a false positive test should at least be entertained and or considered.  In this case, this medical advisor has no reason or authority to doubt any falseness in the COVID-19 testing procedures, results, isolation procedures and or the standard post COVID-19 protocols of specialty referrals. So, the question at hand is did the applicant catch COVID-19 once on duty status (basic training) and did any residuals from such an infection cause him to be unable to continue in military training.  In tackling that question and determination, the submitted evidence revealed a single document from a civilian provider from the Leesburg Sterling Family Practice facility that was dated 1 Dec 20 which simply stated, “I saw [the applicant] as a patient once in (no month cited) 2019 for an annual examination.  His examination was normal."  Such civilian documentation gives essentially no probative value in not knowing when in 2019 or even what type of examination was performed.  Additionally, the seemingly contradiction of cited evidence in the 22 Oct 20 medical record regarding performing two physical training (PT) sessions (and having no adverse symptoms) well after his COVID-19 recovery with symptoms only after his third PT attempt as well as no such difficulty breathing with exercise during the same period coincides “medically” with the underlying condition (which may have been present for a long time prior to enlistment) of an asthma-like syndrome with infrequent flare-ups.  Lastly, his continued evidence to maintain military duties after all COVID-19 protocols coupled with invasive testing revealing an anatomic structural fixed lesion would not support any degree of a condition being service aggravated.  The finding of a “structural” fixed lesion as noted on CT scanning versus a solely “functional” adverse breathing pathology would give quite clear evidence that a viral infection like COVID-19 would not structurally create.   

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 31 Aug 21 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of the AFBCMR Medical Advisor and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2021-00093 in Executive Session on 23 Nov 21:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 15 Jan 21.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory Opinion, AFBCMR Medical Advisor, dated 24 Aug 21.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 31 Aug 21.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.