RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                    DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02670
                                     INDEX CODE: A06.00
                                     COUNSEL:  None

                                     HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His entry-level separation be changed to  an  honorable  discharge  and  the
reason for his separation (Fraudulent Entry) be changed.  (By  amendment  at
Exhibit F) he be retroactively reinstated in the Air Force.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He never had asthma but believe he had  some  kind  of  “allergic  reaction”
with  symptoms  similar  to  asthma.   The  reason  for  his  separation  is
erroneous.

In support of his request, he submits a personal  statement  and  statements
from two family physicians.  His complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the  Regular  Air  Force  on  1  March  2000.   In
November 1999, the applicant completed a Report of  Medical  History  and  a
Medical Prescreening Form in which he did not indicate  ever  having  asthma
or respiratory problems.

On 28 April 2000, during a medical  consultation,  the  attending  physician
made an entry on the applicant’s health record that there was a  history  of
“bronchial asthma.”  On 12 May 2000, the applicant was placed  on  Temporary
Duty Restriction and prescribed an  inhaler.  He  was  also  administered  a
“positive challenge” test, which resulted in a diagnosis of asthma.

On 7 June 2000, in accordance with AFPD 36-32  and  AFI  36-3208,  paragraph
5.15, Fraudulent Enlistment, the commander initiated  discharge  proceedings
against the applicant.  The commander indicated that the applicant  did  not
note his respiratory history on his entrance medical examination  and  that,
as a result of the most-recent medical evaluation of his condition,  it  had
been determined that the condition had existed prior to service and had  not
been permanently aggravated by service.  The applicant was  advised  of  his
rights in  this  matter.   After  consulting  military  legal  counsel,  the
applicant waived his right to submit statements in his behalf.  In  a  legal
review of the discharge case file, the wing staff judge  advocate  found  it
legally sufficient and recommended that the  applicant  be  discharged  from
the Air  Force  with  an  entry-level  separation.   On  7  June  2000,  the
discharge authority directed that the applicant be discharged from  the  Air
Force  with  an  entry-level   separation.    Accordingly,   applicant   was
discharged  on  7  June  2000  by  reason  of  “Fraudulent  Entry”  with   a
Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “2C.”   He  had  served  3  months  on
active duty.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR  Medical  Consultant  reviewed  this  application  and  recommended
denial.   The  Medical  Consultant  indicates  that  if  the  applicant  had
disclosed to authorities his past history of  respiratory  problems,  it  is
likely he would have been referred for testing and  the  positive  challenge
test would then have precluded his entry to the military.  By the  applicant
not disclosing this information, he, in essence, entered the military  under
questionable terms.  (See Exhibit C)

The Separations Branch, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and  recommend
denial.  DPPRS indicated that the applicant’s uncharacterized  character  of
service is correct and in accordance with  Department  of  Defense  and  Air
Force Instructions. The Department of Defense determined if a member  served
less than 180 days continuous active service, it is  unfair  to  the  member
and  the  service  to  characterize   limited   service.    An   entry-level
uncharacterized separation does not  carry  a  negative  connotation.   (See
Exhibit D)

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded and states that he  would  like  to  be  reinstated  and
returned to service.  He reiterates that he did not  intentionally  withhold
information  during  his  enlistment  processing.   He  did  not  deem   his
respiratory problems to be  significant  at  that  time  because  they  were
always curable with antibiotics.  The applicant points out  that  he  passed
basic military training without experiencing problems.  He does not  believe
that his enlistment should be termed “fraudulent.”

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

The applicant has  exhausted  all  remedies  provided  by  existing  law  or
regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence  of  probable  injustice.   After  careful  consideration  of  the
circumstances  surrounding  the  applicant’s  separation,  we  believe   the
applicant did  not  deliberately  try  to  defraud  the  government  by  not
disclosing his past history with bronchial ailments  during  his  enlistment
physical.  Prior to  his  enlistment,  the  applicant  was  seen  by  family
physicians for “wheezing” or  “bronchitis”  but  never  medically  diagnosed
with “asthma.”  We believe that the applicant’s explanation  of  the  events
surrounding his enlistment and separation is reasonable and,  therefore,  it
would be an injustice for him to continue to suffer the adverse  effects  of
the label of “Fraudulent Entry Into Military Service.”  We  do  not  believe
favorable consideration of  the  applicant’s  request  to  be  retroactively
reinstated would be appropriate on the basis of the evidence provided  since
he does have a condition which would  have  precluded  his  entry  into  the
service had its  existence  been  known  at  the  time  of  his  enlistment.
Applicant’s  request  for  an  honorable  discharge  was  also   considered,
however, since the discharge action was initiated within the  180-day  limit
for entry-level separation we find  no  reason  to  change  his  entry-level
separation to an honorable discharge.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 7 June 2000, he received an  entry
level separation  under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3208,  paragraph  1.2,
(Secretarial Authority),  with  Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD)  code
“JFF.”

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 9 May 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
      Ms. Mary C. Johnson, Member
      Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 July 2000, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated
                13 February 2001.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 March 2001.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 March 2001
    Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Review Letter, dated 16 April 2001.



                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair


AFBCMR 00-02670




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to, be corrected to show that on 7 June 2000, he was separated
under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 1.2 (Secretarial Authority)
with a separation code of JFF.






JOE G. LINEBERGER

Director

Air Force Review Boards Agency