RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02345
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  Not Indicated

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The diagnosis of asthma and the decision  to  discharge  him  from  the  Air
Force be re-evaluated.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During basic training and Security Forces technical training he underwent  a
variety of strenuous exercises with no problems.  After technical school  he
took 2 weeks leave and reported to his first duty  station.   After  arrival
at his first duty station he went running and experienced chest  pains.   He
reported the chest pains  to  his  Primary  Care  Physician.   He  told  the
physician of the history  of  asthma  in  his  family  and  everything  went
downhill from there.  He  was  put  on  an  inhaler  and  underwent  several
Pulmonary Functions tests, after which time he was  diagnosed  with  asthma.
His case was sent before a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and eventually  to
the Physical Evaluation  Board  (PEB).   The  PEB  recommended  that  he  be
discharged.  He had been forewarned that because of his rank  and  the  fact
that he was a security forces member not qualified for  worldwide  duty,  he
was "useless" to the Air Force.  He was advised by the Area Defense  Counsel
that he did not have a chance and that if he fought the discharge  he  would
lose what little benefits he was being offered.  He was  a  6-year  enlistee
with plans to reenlist.   He  was  never  diagnosed  with  asthma  prior  to
entering the military and completed his training without any problems.

In support of his request the applicant provided a personal statement.   His
complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 22 Aug 00.   An  MEB  was
convened on 23 Jul 01 and referred his case to an Informal PEB  (IPEB)  with
a diagnosis of asthma.  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%.   The
applicant agreed with the findings and recommended disposition of the  IPEB.
 On 7 Aug 01, the Office of the Secretary of the  Air  Force  directed  that
the applicant be discharged from the Air Force with severance pay.   He  was
discharged on 5 Sep 01.  He served 1 year, 9 months, and 2  days  on  active
duty

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant  reviewed  applicant's  request  and  recommends
denial.  The Medical  Consultant  states  that  he  reported  a  history  of
childhood bronchitis and seasonal allergies, both associated  with  reactive
airways disease (including asthma).  He has a significant family history  of
asthma and eczema in his brothers, also risk factors  for  reactive  airways
disease and asthma.  He was  diagnosed  with  asthma  based  on  a  clinical
history   consistent   with   the   disease   and   positive    methacholine
bronchoprovocation testing.  Bronchospasm, or constriction  of  the  airways
of the lungs is a sign of asthma, but  asthma  is  not  the  only  cause  of
wheezing or bronchospasm.  Asthma is a chronic  condition  characterized  by
inflammation of the airways that leads  to  narrowing  of  the  airways  and
obstruction of the flow of air.  To  determine  whether  asthma  is  present
requires either observation over time with  repeated  measurements  of  lung
function,  or  bronchoprovocation  testing.   Asthmatics   will   experience
variability of their lung function over  time  reflecting  the  presence  of
inflammation causing  broncospasm  resulting  in  obstruction  to  air  flow
measured by the FEV1 or the peak flow.  The applicant demonstrated  symptoms
consistent  with  asthma  over  the  preceding  year,   had   characteristic
pulmonary function  testing,  and  a  markedly  positive  bronchoprovocation
testing with inhaled methacholine.  Bronchoprovocation testing  is  used  in
individuals who are suspected  of  having  asthma.   A  test  is  considered
positive when there is more than 20 % decline in the FEV1.  The  applicant's
FEV1 declined 60%.  A false  positive  methacholine  test  may  result  from
current lung infection, however there was no  evidence  that  the  applicant
had any infection at the time of testing.

The medical standards for continued  service  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  accepts  a  positive
bronchoprovocation test when performed in subjects with  symptoms  suspected
to be asthma as disqualifying.   The  military  services  have  become  very
strict with regard to asthma and  reactive  airway  disease  based  on  past
experience with the high number of medical  casualties  due  to  asthma  and
reactive airways  disease  in  members  assigned  or  deployed  to  overseas
locations.  The applicant's  exercise  related  symptoms  and  his  positive
bronchoprovocation test indicate that he is at considerably higher risk  for
problems when subjected to the rigors of military  operational  environments
required by his job in the security forces.  His asthma or reactive  airways
disease  was  confirmed  by  bronchoprovocation  testing  and   action   and
disposition in this case are proper and equitable.

The Medical consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.   DPPD  states
that a review of his records reveals that  there  are  no  reasons  why  his
records should be corrected to reflect a change in  his  medical  diagnosis.
The  applicant  was  treated  fairly  throughout  the  military   Disability
Evaluation System  (DES)  process,  he  was  properly  rated  under  federal
disability guidelines, and he was  afforded  a  full  and  fair  hearing  as
required under military disability laws.  The DPPD evaluation is at  Exhibit
C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that one of his brothers  has  eczema  and  the  other  has
asthma; however, they have different fathers.  Asthma has not been found  in
his maternal family or his fraternal family.  His shortness of  breath  only
occurred once while he was running  track,  never  while  was  walking.   He
exercised several times after the  incident  with  no  problems.   He  never
reported seasonal allergies.  He told the physicians that  he  was  allergic
to fresh cut grass which only occurs in the spring and summer.   As  far  as
his childhood history of bronchitis  goes,  applicant  states  that  he  had
swollen glands four times.  There is no medical documentation of  a  history
of bronchitis.  He went to the emergency room  because  he  thought  he  was
having an asthma attack.  He was diagnosed with  having  some  type  of  air
pocket in his chest near his heart.  He was  provided  some  medication  and
told by the doctor that he did not have asthma.

He was not treated fairly during the DES process.   From  the  beginning  he
was told to prepare for the worst because he was a  first  term  airman  and
basically worthless to the Air Force.   His  commander  and  first  sergeant
were outraged when they learned that he was  being  discharged  only  to  be
told that it was too late to do anything about it.  Since he  has  been  out
of the Air Force he has traveled extensively to many environments just  like
in North Dakota.  He has even returned to North  Dakota  this  past  summer.
He works out six days a week and is very active with no  signs  or  symptoms
of asthma.  His 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  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however,  we  do  not
find his uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently
persuasive to override the evidence of record.   Therefore,  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.   In
the absence of persuasive 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  Docket  Number  02-02345  in
Executive Session on 15 Jan 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Jul 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 24 Sep 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 23 Oct 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Nov 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Nov 02.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair