RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00438
            INDEX CODE 110.02  108.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His entry-level separation be upgraded to  an  honorable  discharge
under medical conditions.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was in good health upon entering the service.   His  asthma  was
diagnosed within the first week of basic training and he feels that
it should have been a medical discharge under honorable conditions.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 18 December 2001, in
the grade of airman basic (AB/E-1).

On 22 Jan  02,  the  squadron  commander  initiated  administrative
discharge action against the applicant  for  erroneous  enlistment.
The reason for the proposed action was that he received  a  medical
narrative summary, dated 14 Jan 02, that found  the  applicant  did
not meet minimum medical standards to enlist.  The applicant should
not have been allowed to enlist in the Air Force  with  asthma.  He
did  not  qualify  for  a  disability  separation.   The  commander
recommended that the applicant be given an entry-level  separation.
On that same date, applicant acknowledged receipt of the  discharge
notification.  He waived his right to consult counsel and to submit
statements  in  his  own  behalf.    He   also   acknowledged   his
understanding of the reasons for his discharge, and that  he  would
not be entitled to any disability, retirement,  or  severance  pay.
On 23 Jan 02, the  discharge  authority  approved  the  entry-level
separation with service uncharacterized.

Other relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from
the applicant’s military  records,  are  contained  in  the  letter
prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  reviewed   this   application   and
recommended denial.  The  applicant  developed  asthma  within  the
first two weeks of  basic  training  and  did  not  complete  basic
training.  During the medical evaluation it was determined that the
symptoms of asthma had existed prior to service, but he  apparently
was never seen or treated by a physician for  those  symptoms.   He
denied any history of symptoms  of  asthma  in  his  entry  medical
examination.  Entry level separation for erroneous  enlistment  and
failure to meet physical standards for enlistment was  appropriate.
An entry-level separation is given only when the person is  in  his
or her 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.  It  does  not  attempt  to
characterize the type of service as either good or bad, although it
is not the only type of service a person can receive.   Action  and
disposition in this case are proper and reflect compliance with Air
Force directives that implement the law.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPRS also reviewed and  recommended  denial.   They  found
that  the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the   procedural   and
substantive   requirements    of    the    discharge    regulation.
Additionally, that the discharge was within the sound discretion of
the discharge authority.  They also noted  that  airmen  are  given
entry-level  separation/uncharacterized  service   characterization
when separation is initiated in the first 180  days  of  continuous
active service.  The Department of Defense (DOD)  determined  if  a
member served less than 180 days continuous service,  it  would  be
unfair to the member and the service to characterize their  limited
service.  Therefore, his uncharacterized service is correct and  in
accordance with DOD  and  Air  Force  instructions.   They  further
stated that an entry-level  separation  should  not  be  viewed  as
negative or less than honorable and should  not  be  confused  with
other types of separation.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 24 May 02 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).

___________________________________________________________________

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 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
Air  Force  offices  of  primary  responsibility  and  adopt  their
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  this  application
AFBCMR Docket Number 02-00438 in Executive Session on 11 July 2002,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Panel Chair
      Ms. Diane Arnold, Member
      Mr. E. David Hoard, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Feb 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 25 Apr 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 May 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 May 02, w/atchs.




                                   LAWRENCE R. LEEHY
                                   Panel Chair