RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00797 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reentry code of 2Q (personnel medically retired or discharged) be changed to 3A (first-term airman who separates before completing 36 months or 60 months for six-year enlistees on current enlistment and who has no known qualifying factors or ineligibility conditions except grade, skill level, and insufficient total active federal military service). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She believes her Methacholine Challenge Test was interpreted incorrectly when she was on active duty. She is unable to serve in any branch of the Armed Services without the error being corrected. In support of her request, the applicant provides extracts of medical records, a memorandum from her physician, and a copy of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 23 Nov 99. Her Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) report, dated 11 Apr 03, reflects she was not worldwide qualified and was recommended to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). She concurred with the findings and recommendations of the MEB on 22 Apr 03. On 28 Apr 03, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) found the applicant unfit for duty and recommended she be discharged. Additionally, the IPEB noted the applicant’s history of breathing problems and inhaler use as a child. On 30 Apr 03, she concurred with the findings and indicated she understood she was waiving the right to a Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB). On 30 Apr 03, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) determined the applicant was physically unfit for continued military service due to a physical disability which existed prior to military service and directed that she be discharged without disability benefits. The applicant was discharged on 16 Jun 03 with an honorable discharge and a narrative reason for separation of “disability existed prior to service.” A 17 Jun 03, Department of Veterans Affairs rating decision reflects the applicant was awarded a 30 percent rating for service-connected asthma. _________________________________________________________________ BCMR MEDICAL CONSULTANT’S EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial and states the applicant has not met her burden of proof that an error or injustice occurred. The BCMR Medical Consultant states by today’s standards there must be “clear and unmistakable evidence” that the medical condition predated military service in order to be designated as existed prior to service (EPTS). The applicant’s appeal is not whether her condition existed prior to service, but whether it ever existed at all. In the clinical history taken in conjunction with her MEB, the applicant reported experiencing shortness of breath as a child, which was relieved by “taking inhalers one time,” although not formally diagnosed with asthma. The Board should also be aware that, despite the applicant’s implicit denial of having asthma, she accepted a 30 percent disability rating from the DVA, effective 17 Jun 03. The rationale for the rating decision in 2003 is extracted as, “She developed breathing problems after having worked one and a half years in a building with asbestos. She also worked in an environment that was dusty and worked with some chemicals like spray paint and paint thinners. She never was diagnosed to have asthma prior to 2003. She gets short of breath with physical activity. She has no history of heart disease. She takes her albuterol inhaler regularly every day. She states there is no wheezing and she only develops shortness of breath.” Since the applicant’s shortness of breath has consistently been associated with physical exertion, she could well have what is referred to as intrinsic asthma; that is, one in which the trigger or onset of symptoms is not related to an external exposure to an allergen or other sensitizing agent. While the applicant has provided test results which reflect, in the resting state, she now has normal pulmonary function; this does not eliminate her vulnerability for developing a recurrence of her symptoms under physical exertion. The Medical Consultant finds this vulnerability to be of particular concern under the austere operational environments and physical stressors confronting all members of today’s Air and Space Expeditionary Force; sparing no Service component or career field. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 11 Sep 09 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not received a response. _________________________________________________________________ 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, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 Docket Number BC- 2009-00797 in Executive Session on 15 October 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Mar 09, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 4 Sep 09. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Sep 09. Panel Chair