RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01045
            INDEX CODE:  108.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The reason for her discharge be changed from misconduct to reflect that  she
was discharged for medical reasons.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was in her fourth week of advanced training when she was diagnosed  with
asthma.  She was released from active duty because of this and has  no  idea
why misconduct was listed as the reason for discharge nor does she know  why
she did not receive an honorable discharge.  She was never  in  any  trouble
while on active duty.

In support of her request, applicant provided a  copy  of  her  DD  Fm  214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active  Duty;  and,  AF  Form  100,
Request and Authorization for Separation.   Her  complete  submission,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 8 Aug 01.  On 15 Feb 02,  she
was notified  by  her  commander  that  he  was  recommending  that  she  be
discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-
3208,  paragraph  5.26.1,  for  Unsatisfactory   Performance   or   Conduct,
specifically Unsatisfactory Duty Performance.  The specific reason for  this
action was that between 5 Nov 01 and 30 Jan 02 she had been out of  training
for over 90 days and stated  that  she  had  no  desire  to  train  and  was
reluctant to meet Air Force standards.  She was advised  of  her  rights  in
this matter and acknowledged receipt on that  same  date.   She  elected  to
waive  her  right  to  consult  counsel  and  waived  her  right  to  submit
statements on her own behalf.  In a legal review of her case, the  Assistant
Staff Judge Advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended  that
she be separated.  On 25 Feb 02, the discharge authority concurred with  the
recommendations  and  directed  that  she   be   discharged   with   service
characterized as honorable.  She was discharged on 5 Mar 02.  She  served  6
months and 28 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant  reviewed  applicant's  request  and  recommends
denial.  The Medical Consultant states that on 20 Oct 01  she  presented  to
the  clinic  and  received  over-the-counter  medication  for   minor   cold
symptoms.  She was evaluated  on  5  Nov  01  complaining  of  shortness  of
breath, wheezing and nonproductive cough.  She was diagnosed with  an  upper
respiratory tract infection and returned to duty.  She was seen again on  13
Nov 01 complaining of cold symptoms, shortness of  breath,  and  chest  pain
with exercise since basic military training.  She had wheezing  on  physical
examination and asthma was suspected.  On 14 Nov 01, she  was  evaluated  in
the allergy clinic and it  was  noted  that  she  experienced  her  symptoms
mainly with exertion and occasionally at rest.  She reported  a  history  of
shortness  of  breath  with  exertion  for  many   years   prohibiting   her
participation in team  sports.   The  documentation  of  her  December  2001
evaluation is not present and it is not known  if  she  was  ever  diagnosed
with asthma.

Her respiratory symptoms interfered  with  her  participation  in  continued
military training for 90 days.  Due to  the  missing  documentation  in  her
service medical records, it is not  clear  what  her  final  diagnosis  was,
however, her commander indicates there was  medical  documentation  provided
for the administrative separation process  that  indicated  a  diagnosis  of
asthma.  It appears that her service characterization as general was due  to
her attitude, the fact that she had  not  completed  training  and  had  not
served in a fashion sufficient to earn an honorable  characterization.   Her
symptoms  of  shortness  of  breath  with  exertion  were  reported  by  the
applicant to have existed for several years prior to entering  the  service.


The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.   DPPD  states
that her military records confirm that she was never  referred  to  the  Air
Force Disability  Evaluation  System  (DES).   A  review  of  her  induction
prescreening and medical history forms fails to show a problem  with  asthma
or respiratory problems  prior  to  her  entry  on  active  duty.   She  was
referred to the Allergy Clinic  and  Wilford  Hall  Medical  Center  shortly
following her entry into technical school and  was  subsequently  placed  on
several temporary duty restrictions and profiles  that  precluded  her  from
finalizing her training.  A counseling session on 31  Jan  01  reveals  that
she no longer desired to continue with training.  Her  voluntary  action  to
refuse to continue on with her  training  subsequently  precluded  her  from
reasonably fulfilling the purpose of her  employment  with  the  Air  Force.
Her commander's action  to  administratively  separate  her  appears  to  be
justified based on her reluctance to recommence with her training.

Occurrence of signs or symptoms of chronic diseases identified in the  early
stages of a military career that the disease could not  have  originated  in
that short a period will be accepted as proof that  the  disease  manifested
prior to entry into active military service.  Had she  been  referred  to  a
Medical Evaluation Board  (MEB)  and  the  case  referred  to  the  Informal
Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) the  board  more  than  likely  would  have
recommended that she be discharged for a  medical  provision  determined  to
have existed prior to service without entitlement to military benefits.

The DPPD evaluation, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that she never stated to anyone that she did not desire  to
expand her military career.  To live a military life has been nothing but  a
dream come true for her.  She did at one point  lose  interest  in  being  a
Security Forces specialist simply because she had been out of  training  for
a long period of time.  She joined the military because  that  is  what  she
desired to do. She believes that she was truly dedicated  and  very  willing
to do her job.

Her respiratory problems came only when  she  overexerted  herself,  not  as
occasional as the present.  She played basketball in  high  school  but  she
could not continue because of a severely sprained ankle, not because of  her
breathing.  However, she has no medical records to confirm that.

Her complete submission is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  The  applicant  noted  errors  on
her DD Form 214  which  reflects  that  her  service  was  characterized  as
"general" instead of "honorable", and the narrative  reason  for  separation
reflects "misconduct" when it should reflect  "unsatisfactory  performance."
We also noted that the corresponding RE code reflects "2B" instead of  "2C."
 We have been advised that these errors are  administrative  in  nature  and
will be corrected accordingly.  In regard to the request for her records  to
be changed to reflect that  she  was  discharged  for  medical  reasons;  no
evidence has been presented which would lead us to believe that  a  physical
condition existed at the time of her discharge that warranted a  finding  of
unfitness in accordance with the  governing  Air  Force  instruction,  which
implements  the  law.   Therefore,  we   agree   with   the   opinions   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.  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 probable 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  02-01045  in
Executive Session on 20 Aug 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Apr 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 20 May 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 19 Jun 02
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jun 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, not dated.



                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair