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 CONTENDS THAT:

He had no prior diagnosis for asthma by competent medical authority
prior to enlistment.

In support of the his appeal, applicant provided a statement from a
physician.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 August  2001,  in
the grade of airman basic (AB/E-1).

On 6  Dec  01,  the  squadron  commander  initiated  administrative
discharge action against the applicant  for  erroneous  enlistment.
The  reason  for  the  proposed  action  was  that  he  received  a
Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 26 Nov 01,  that  found
the applicant was diagnosed with asthma which did not  exist  prior
to enlistment.  The diagnosis did not meet retention standards  for
continued military service and applicant’s ability to  function  in
the military was significantly impaired.  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.   On  10  Dec  01,  the  staff  judge
advocate found the case to be legally sufficient, and the discharge
authority  approved  the  entry-level   separation   with   service
uncharacterized.

The applicant received an uncharacterized entry-level separation on
18 Dec 2001, by reason of “Erroneous Enlistment.”  He was  credited
with 3 months and 28 days of active duty service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  reviewed   this   application   and
recommended denial.  The  applicant  developed  recurrent  problems
with shortness of breath and chest tightness  diagnosed  as  asthma
while in security forces training.  His medical records reveal that
he experienced recurrent “minor cold symptoms” beginning  in  early
fall 2001.  He was seen  twice  with  complaints  of  shortness  of
breath, chest pains and chest tightness.  He was  referred  to  the
Allergy Clinic where he was found  to  have  a  positive  histamine
bronchoprovocation test on 26 Nov 01 (36% fall  in  the  FEV1  with
significant improvement with  administration  of  a  bronchodilator
medication).  The histamine bronchoprovocation test is performed by
administering nebulized histamine inhaled at increasing doses  with
pulmonary function measurements with each dose.  As a result of the
histamine  challenge  test  and  the  allergist’s  diagnosis,   the
applicant underwent entry-level separation.  He denied any  history
of asthma prior to entering active duty.

Medical  standards  for  enlistment  (and  for  continued  service)
indicate that “asthma, including reactive airway disease,  exercise
induced bronchospasm or asthmatic bronchitis, reliably diagnosed at
any age,” is disqualifying (AFI 48-123, Atch.  3,  3.12.4.).   Thus
the medical standards are  broader  than  a  defined  diagnosis  of
asthma and include  reactive  airways  that  may  not  meet  strict
criteria for the diagnosis of asthma.  The Air Force as a matter of
policy and practice, accepts  a  positive  bronchoprovocation  test
when performed in subjects with symptoms suspected to be asthma  or
reactive airways disease as disqualifying.

Erroneous enlistment is an enlistment that would not have  occurred
if the service had known about the applicant’s condition  prior  to
enlistment and the applicant  did  not  intentionally  conceal  his
condition.   Fraudulent  enlistment  is  when  the   condition   is
intentionally concealed.  There is no evidence that  the  applicant
concealed any medical history of reactive airway disease.  There is
also no pre-service medical  information  available  to  assess  if
there was any evidence of reactive  airways  disease.   Action  and
disposition in  this  case  are  proper  and  equitable  reflecting
compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPRS 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 20 Sep 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.   The  applicant's
complete submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  his  contentions
were  duly  noted;  however,  we  agree  with  the   opinions   and
recommendations 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.   The
evidence of record reflects that the applicant received  an  entry-
level separation for erroneous enlistment based on a  diagnosis  of
asthma, to include reactive airway disease.  We  find  no  evidence
which would lead us to believe that his separation was improper  or
contrary to the governing directive under which  it  was  effected.
Accordingly, 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 AFBCMR Docket  Number
02-01757 in  Executive  Session  on  4  February  2003,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
      Ms. Martha Maust, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 May 02, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 19 Aug 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Sep 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Sep 02.




                                   JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                   Panel Chair