RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-01635
INDEX CODE 110.02 100.06
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The narrative reason for his discharge be changed.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His enlistment was not fraudulent because he does not have asthma and
did not lie about anything. He had bronchitis during training, not
asthma. When he was 8 years old and had pneumonia, he used an inhaler
a few times. He provides a statement from his mother, asserting the
recruiter told them not to check the box for asthma because it was not
a reportable asthma incident.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On his Report of Medical History, dated 15 Nov 00, the applicant
indicated he did not have asthma, was not on any medications, and had
no known allergies. He entered active duty on 7 Aug 01 and began basic
military training (BMT). After developing shortness of breath and
wheezing with exercise, he was evaluated by the allergy clinic and was
diagnosed with reactive airway disease or asthma. A history of use of
inhalers in childhood was elicited and felt to represent episodes of
reactive airways consistent with asthma. The applicant indicated he
was told by the recruiter not to mention this fact.
As a result, his commander recommended him for discharge for
fraudulent entry. The applicant waived his option to consult counsel
and submit statements. The case was found legally sufficient and the
discharge authority directed the applicant’s entry-level separation
for fraudulent entry into military service.
The applicant was separated on 6 Nov 01 with an entry-level separation
(uncharacterized) and a reenlistment code (RE) of “2C” (Involuntarily
separated with entry-level separation without characterization of
service). His separation program designator code (SPD) was “JDA”
(Fraudulent entry into military service). The applicant had 3 months
of active service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The AFBCMR Medical Consultant notes that, although the applicant may
not have asthma in the strictest definition, he demonstrated abnormal
reactive airway disease both with exercise by history and on
bronchoprovocation testing. The Air Force and other military services
have become very strict with regard to asthma and reactive airway
disease in members deployed to overseas locations. Both harsh
environments with regard to air quality and high rates of respiratory
tract infections result in significant problems even in members’
reactive airway disease without definite asthma. The applicant’s
experience during BMT and his positive bronchoprovocation test
indicate that he is at considerably higher risk for recurrent problems
when subjected to the rigors of military operational environments.
Action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable and the
applicant’s appeal should be denied.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 6 Sep 02 for review and comment within 30 days. As of
this date, this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. 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 error or injustice to warrant changing the
applicant’s narrative reason for separation. We cannot determine with
certainty whether the applicant had asthma, bronchitis, or allergies
when he enlisted. In any event, we are persuaded that he sincerely
believed his respiratory ailment and earlier use of an inhaler were
not reportable incidents. His mother corroborates this was the
recruiter’s position also. We believe “fraudulent enlistment” is too
harsh a label for what appears to be a somewhat ambiguous situation
rather than an intentional misrepresentation. Therefore, we recommend
any doubt be resolved in this applicant’s favor by changing his
narrative reason for separation to “JFF” (Secretarial Authority).
However, as the applicant appears to have some form of reactive airway
condition that would put him at risk if deployed, we believe his
reenlistment eligibility code, which renders him ineligible for
reenlistment, should remain unchanged. Accordingly, we recommend the
applicant’s records be corrected to the extent indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that, at the time of his
entry level separation on 6 November 2001, the narrative reason for
separation was Secretarial Authority, and he was issued a separation
program designator code of “JFF.”
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 19 December 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member
Ms. Diane Arnold, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
01635 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 May 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 9 Aug 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Sep 02.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Vice Chair
AFBCMR 02-01635
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, at the time of his
entry level separation on 6 November 2001, the narrative reason for
separation was Secretarial Authority, and he was issued a separation
program designator code of “JFF.”
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01556
Based on symptoms consistent with reactive airways disease and asthma and the positive bronchoprovocation test confirming abnormal bronchial reactivity, he underwent entry-level separation. The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states he was sick with a bad case of bronchitis when he was tested for asthma. Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 Sep 03.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03273
The remaining facts pertaining to the applicant’s medical issues are discussed in the advisory opinion provided by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Medical Consultant recommended denial noting that during her enlistment medical examination, she completed a DD Form 2807, Report of Medical History. A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01757
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01757 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, be changed from “Erroneous Enlistment.” ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02345
The PEB recommended that he be discharged. On 31 Jul 01, the IPEB found him unfit for further military service based on a diagnosis of asthma and recommended that he be discharged with severance pay, with a compensable rating of 10%. He was diagnosed with asthma based on a clinical history consistent with the disease and positive methacholine bronchoprovocation testing.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01947
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPPD recommends the application be denied, and states, in part the applicant was processed through the Disability Evaluation System (DES) and was found unfit for continued military service based on asthma which existed prior to service. The applicant contends the determination that her asthma existed prior to her service was solely based on the single sentence in the MEB that she reported using an...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-01894
He was tested for asthma and subsequently discharged from the Air Force. Furthermore, the Medical Consultant states in order to qualify for MGIB benefits, the applicant was required to complete 36 months of active duty service and receive an honorable discharge. The applicant's concealment of a disqualifying medical condition at the time of enlistment examination and non-distinguished conduct while in training does not merit action by the Secretary to change his characterization of...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-00218
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied. Although the applicant is presently doing well as indicated by a recent allergy evaluation, the record clearly shows she was experiencing physical problems while in training and her symptoms, suggestive of asthma or reactive airways disease, required her separation from the Air Force at that time. Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02469
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that although he contends he provided medical information for the three years up to the time of his enlistment, there is no evidence to confirm this. The Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application and states they concur with the Medical Consultant’s evaluation and recommend no...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01757
The IPEB reviewed his case and found the member fit and recommended, "Return to Duty." BCMR Medical Consultant's complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated he sought a second opinion by pulmonologist in December 2005 and was diagnosed with asthma after having below normal pulmonary function tests. In this respect, the Board notes...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2006-01757
The IPEB reviewed his case and found the member fit and recommended, "Return to Duty." BCMR Medical Consultant's complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated he sought a second opinion by pulmonologist in December 2005 and was diagnosed with asthma after having below normal pulmonary function tests. In this respect, the Board notes...