RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00866
            INDEX CODE:  100.03, 100.06
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her medical diagnosis be changed.

2.  Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was wrongfully diagnosed and only provided an entry-level separation.

In  support  of  her  request,  applicant  provided  statements   from   her
physicians and a document extracted from her medical record.   Her  complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 Jun  02.   On  28 Aug  02,
while attending Security Forces technical training, she was notified by  her
commander that he was recommending that  she  be  discharged  from  the  Air
Force in accordance with AFPD 36-32 and AFI  36-3208,  paragraph  5.14,  for
erroneous  enlistment.   The  specific  reason  for  this  action  was   the
Chronological Record of Medical Care dated 4 Aug 02,  which  indicated  that
she was diagnosed with Vocal Cord  Dysfunction  (VCD).   It  was  determined
that the condition existed prior  to  service  and  was  not  aggravated  by
service.  Because of the condition, her ability to function  in  a  military
environment was significantly impaired.  She was advised of  her  rights  in
this matter and acknowledged receipt of the notification on that same  date.
   The applicant waived her right to consult  counsel  and  elected  not  to
submit statements on her own behalf.  In a legal review  of  the  case,  the
attorney  advisor  found  the  case  legally  sufficient.    The   discharge
authority concurred  with  the  recommendation  and  directed  that  she  be
discharged with an entry-level separation.  Applicant  was  discharged  from
the Air Force on 27 Sep 02.  She served 3  months  and  17  days  on  active
duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
states that individuals with VCD do become incapacitated during  an  attack,
as much as with an asthma attack.  The attacks are  precipitated  by  stress
including military training and operations and may not  occur  again  during
less stressful times.  Patients with this condition  are  often  thought  to
have asthma, or exercise induced asthma.  Provocative testing with  exercise
or inhaled histamine can reproduce the symptoms  in  some  individuals  with
VCD enabling an opportunity for diagnosis by  direct  visualization  of  the
vocal cords as occurred in this  case.   Thus,  the  normal  examination  in
December 2002, while the applicant was asymptomatic does  not  exclude  this
diagnosis.  She was diagnosed by a specialist experienced in  the  diagnosis
of this condition.  The applicant had a history  of  asthma  and  exertional
related bronchospasm existing prior to service.  Testing  reliably  excluded
asthma.  The presence of symptoms previously diagnosed as  exercise  related
bronchospasm is consistent with the presence of  VCD.   VCD  is  a  chronic,
recurrent condition, and is disqualifying for service.  There is  no  single
effective  treatment  which  would  reliably  prevent   recurrent   symptoms
interfering with the performance  of  duty.   Enlistment  medical  standards
stipulate that any condition of the larynx that interferes  with  speech  or
breathing  is  disqualifying  for  enlistment.    The   Medical   Consultant
evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  states  that  the   discharge   was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge  regulation  and  was  within  the  discretion  of  the  discharge
authority.  Airmen are given entry-level separation/uncharacterized  service
characterization when separation is initiated  in  the  first  180  days  of
continuous active service.  Uncharacterized entry-level service  should  not
be viewed as negative and  should  not  be  confused  with  other  types  of
separation.  The DPPRRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAE states that the applicant's RE code 2C, "Involuntarily  separated
with  an  honorable   discharge;   or   entry   level   separation   without
characterization  of  service"  is  correct.   Waivers  of  RE   codes   for
enlistment are considered and approved based on the needs of the  respective
military service and recruiting initiatives at the time  of  the  enlistment
inquiry.  The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the  applicant  on  18
Jul 03 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.  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 her case; however,  we  do  not
find the opinions of her  civilian  physicians  sufficiently  persuasive  to
override the rationale provided by the BCMR Medical Consultant.   Therefore,
we are not persuaded that she has been the victim of an error  or  injustice
with respect to her medical diagnosis.  Regarding her request to change  her
RE code, evidence has not been presented which  would  lead  us  to  believe
that a change of her RE code is warranted.  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 she 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 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  BC-2003-
00866 in Executive Session on 21 Aug 03, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Feb 03.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 27 May 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Jul 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 11 Jul 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jul 03.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair