RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03241
            INDEX CODE:  110.00, 100.03

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her  reenlistment  eligibility  (RE)  code  of  2C  be  changed   to   allow
eligibility to reenlist in the Air Force.  It appears that  she  would  also
like her narrative reason for separation changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She had not done any hard  running  prior  to  entering  the  Air  Force  so
naturally, when she began training, she was having problems.   She  overcame
those problems and passed the  physical  fitness  part  of  basic  training.
After three weeks into technical school, without any form  of  exercise,  PT
started with a run.  She began to have trouble breathing with  tightness  in
her chest near the  end  of  the  “smoking  session.”   She  was  ultimately
diagnosed with asthma.  Following  her  separation,  she  went  to  see  her
primary care physician, who did the same test that  the  military  ran,  and
was diagnosed as non-asthmatic.

In support of her request, applicant submits a personal letter  and  a  copy
of Standard Form 600, Chronological Record of  Medical  Care,  dated  21 Aug
00.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments,  is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted her enlistment in the Regular Air Force on  24  May  00
for a period of 6 years.

On 29 Aug 00,  the  applicant  received  notification  that  she  was  being
recommended for discharge for erroneous enlistment.   The  reason  for  this
action was due to the applicant being diagnosed with asthma, existing  prior
to service.  The applicant acknowledged  receipt  of  the  notification  and
waived her option to consult counsel and declined to  submit  statements  in
her behalf.  On 31 Aug 00, the discharge authority approved the  recommended
separation and  directed  that  the  applicant  be  issued  an  entry  level
separation.  She received an uncharacterized entry  level  separation  on  6
Sep 00 under the provisions of  AFI  36-3208  (erroneous  entry).   She  had
completed a total of 3 months and 13 days and was serving in  the  grade  of
airman basic (E-1) at the time of separation.  She received an  RE  Code  of
2C,  which  defined  means  "Involuntarily  separated  with   an   honorable
discharge; or, entry level separation without characterization of service."
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends the  application  be  denied.   The
AFBCMR Medical Consultant states that, on 16 Aug 00, the applicant  reported
to the clinic complaining of wheezing, especially when  running,  associated
with chest tightness.  Because her symptoms  were  consistent  with  asthma,
she was referred for evaluation by the Wilford Hall Medical  Center  Allergy
-  Immunology  Department.   On  her  18  Aug  00  allergy  evaluation,  the
applicant reported shortness of breath with  wheezing  and  chest  tightness
with 5 minutes of  exertion.   She  underwent  histamine  bronchoprovocation
testing which was positive for reactive airways disease  consistent  with  a
diagnosis of moderate asthma.  Following the applicant’s 24 Aug 00 visit  to
the clinic complaining  of  feeling  depressed  and  having  thoughts  about
suicide, she was diagnosed with adjustment  disorder.   The  AFBCMR  Medical
Consultant indicates that the applicant was diagnosed  with  two  conditions
disqualifying  for  military  service,  asthma  and   adjustment   disorder.
Although the applicant may not have had asthma in the  strictest  definition
before entering the military, she clearly demonstrated symptoms of  exercise
induced asthma during her presumptive period that  rendered  her  unfit  for
duty.  Histamine  bronchoprovocation  testing  confirmed  the  diagnosis  of
asthma.   The  applicant’s  experience  during  training  and  her  positive
bronchoprovocation test indicate that she 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
reflecting compliance with Air Force  directives  that  implement  the  law.
The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.


HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  the  application  be  denied.   Based  upon  the
documentation in the file, DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent  with
the procedural and substantive requirements  of  the  discharge  regulation.
DPPRS states that airmen are given  entry  level  separation/uncharacterized
service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180  days
of continuous active  service.   An  entry-level/uncharacterized  separation
should not be viewed as negative and  should  not  be  confused  with  other
types of separation.  The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.


HQ AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application be denial.  DPPAE states  that  the
applicant’s RE Code of 2C is correct.  The HQ AFPC/DPPAE  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated she was not  told
that she had an adjustment disorder.   This  so-called  adjustment  disorder
occurred immediately after being told that she was being separated from  the
Air Force.  She provided additional  information  on  asthma  and  histamine
challenges.  In her opinion, she was suffering from hay  fever  that  caused
her to have some asthma symptoms.  After reading  the  researched  articles,
she feels she has been wrongfully separated  due  to  improper  testing  and
because she was wrongfully diagnosed with  asthma.   She  has  not  had  any
problems with breathing since  returning  home.   The  applicant’s  complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________

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.  After thoroughly  reviewing  the  evidence
of record and noting the applicant’s submission,  we  are  unpersuaded  that
the requested relief should be approved.  In this  respect,  we  noted  that
the  applicant  was  diagnosed  with  moderate  asthma  and  an   adjustment
disorder,  conditions  that  are   disqualifying   for   military   service.
Applicant’s contentions are duly noted;  however,  we  found  no  persuasive
evidence that  responsible  officials  applied  inappropriate  standards  in
effecting the applicant’s discharge, that pertinent Air  Force  instructions
were violated or that the applicant was  not  afforded  all  the  rights  to
which entitled at the time of  separation.   We  therefore  agree  with  the
opinions and recommendations of the appropriate Air Force offices and  adopt
the rationale expressed as the basis for our  decision  that  the  applicant
has failed to sustain her burden that she has suffered either  an  error  or
an injustice.  In view of the above and absent 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 27 Mar 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member
                  Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2002-03241.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Oct 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 18 Dec 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Jan 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 10 Feb 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.
   Exhibit G.  Letter from Applicant, dated 5 Mar 03, w/atchs.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair