RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03356 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2Q (Personnel medically retired or discharged) be changed to allow reentry in the military. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was discharged for asthma but does not have asthma, nor has he ever had asthma. The test that was done which led to his discharge was conducted while he had a cold. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 25 Jul 06. On 30 Mar 07, during the applicant’s periodic health assessment, he complained of shortness of breath with exercise/exertion. On the same date, an AF Form 422, Physical Profile Serial Report, was completed assigning him a “P4” non-worldwide qualified profile and restricted him from performing the 1.5 mile run and from using a respirator or gas mask. On 5 Apr 07 and 16 Apr 07, pulmonary function tests were conducted on the applicant and resulted in his diagnosis of asthma. On 30 Jul 07 the applicant was referred to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) after meeting a Medical Evaluation Board where he was diagnosed with asthma. On 13 Sep 07, the applicant was found unfit for continued service at the IPEB and recommended for discharge with severance pay with a disability rating of ten percent. The IPEB noted the applicant’s profile limited him from respirator and gas mask wear, which prohibited him from performing the scope of duties required by his AFSC (Fire Protection). On 1 Oct 07, the applicant was determined to be unfit for continued military service and directed to be discharged with severance pay. On 9 Nov 07, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, with an RE code 2Q and narrative reason for separation of “Disability, severance pay,” and was credited with 1 year, 3 months, and 15 days of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial, indicating that the applicant has not provided any proof of an error or injustice related to his RE code. The applicant received an RE code of 2Q – “Personnel medically retired or discharged” and was paid $3,963.35 in severance pay based on his disability discharge. This RE code is correct per AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, chapter 3, based on his disability discharge. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPFD recommends denial as it pertains to the disability process. The RE code of 2Q is correct for a member who was approved for a medical retirement or separation. The preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the disability process. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit D. BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his RE code. The Medical consultant agrees that an active upper respiratory tract infection or other significant pulmonary infection could affect the diagnostic accuracy when testing for asthma. However addressing the likely mechanism for the applicant’s symptoms, noting his report of experiencing “progressively worsening symptoms over the past year,” exercise-induced asthma is believed to be the result of the increased low of cold air directly entering the upper and lower airways during extended periods of mouth breathing; which typically occurs during and immediately following extended exertion., e.g., running and skateboarding. Regardless, the applicant experienced a prohibitive -22% drop in Forced Expiratory Volume (FEV-1) upon administrative of dosage number 2 of methacholine. Asthma is disqualifying for service re-entry, 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. Individuals do meet the standard if within the past 3 years they meet ALL of the criteria in subparagraphs 11.d (2)(a)-(d) immediately below: a. No use of controller or rescue medications (including but not limited to inhaled corticosteroids, leukotriene receptor antagonists, or short-acting medical treatment. b. No exacerbations requiring acute medical treatment. c. No use of oral steroids. d. A current normal spirometry, performed in accordance with American Thoracic Society guidelines and as defined by current National heart, lung, and Blood Institute standards. The medical consultant has no way of discerning whether the applicant has experienced a recurrence of his exercise-induced bronchospasm since leaving military service in 2007; nor whether he has been prescribed or used an over-the-counter product to abate his symptoms within three years. Moreover, the applicant has not presented a normal repeat exercise pulmonary function test and a negative repeat methacholine challenge test, conducted within the past 90 days. Based upon the aforementioned, the Consultant opines the burden of proof of error or injustice has not been met to warrant the desired change of record. A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 26 Feb 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). 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 opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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-2014-03356 in Executive Session on 21 May 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03356 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Aug 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 16 Sep 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPFFD, dated 20 Oct 14. Exhibit E. Memorandum, AFBCMR, Medical Consultant, dated 20 Feb 15. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Feb 15.