RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01556
                 INDEX CODE:  110.02, 108.10
                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  involuntary  administrative  discharge  be  changed  to  a  disability
discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The record states that he was discharged due to "asthma" which he  does  not
have nor has he ever had.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of a  DD  Form  293,
Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the  Armed  Forces
of the United States,  copies  of  letters  sent  to  his  congressman,  and
documentation extracted from his medical records.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted into the  Regular  Air  Force  on  30  October  2001,
completed basic military training  and  entered  Security  Forces  training.
While  in  training,  in  late  December  2001,  he  developed  an  apparent
respiratory tract infection associated with shortness of breath.   Prior  to
entering basic military training he reported that he  had  minimal  symptoms
and was active in athletics without problems and had never used an  inhaler.
 He also reported a family history of asthma in  his  mother  and  brothers.
Baseline lung function testing was normal, but because of a  high  suspicion
of   asthma   or   reactive   airway   disease,   he   underwent   histamine
bronchoprovocation testing.  He had a positive  test  (38%  decline  in  the
forced expiratory volume in one second; 20% decline is positive)  at  a  low
dose of histamine (2mg - protocol escalates  the  dose  up  to  8mg),  which
completely reversed with inhaled bronchodilator medication.   Based  on  the
histamine bronchoprovocation test; he was medically  disqualified  for  duty
and  administratively  discharged  on  5  March  2002  with  an  entry-level
separation and a reenlistment eligibility code (RE) of 2C.  He was  credited
with four months and six days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant indicates  the  applicant  developed  persisting
symptoms of  shortness  of  breath  following  an  upper  respiratory  tract
infection  that  was  accompanied  by  symptoms  including  wheezing,  chest
tightness, nocturnal  awakenings  with  shortness  of  breath  and  wheezing
consistent with bronchospasm.  These symptoms  are  suggestive  of  reactive
airways disease and asthma.  Based  on  symptoms  consistent  with  reactive
airways  disease  and  asthma  and  the  positive  bronchoprovocation   test
confirming  abnormal  bronchial   reactivity,   he   underwent   entry-level
separation.

Medical  standards  for  enlistment  and  continued  service  indicate  that
"asthma, including reactive airways disease, exercise  induced  bronchospasm
or asthmatic bronchitis, reliably diagnosed at  any  age"  is  disqualifying
for enlistment.  Although the applicant may  not  have  had  asthma  in  the
strictest definition before entering the military, he  clearly  demonstrated
symptoms of reactive  airways  disease  or  asthma  during  his  presumptive
period (first 180 days of active service) that rendered him unfit for  duty.
 The applicant provided evidence  that  confirms  his  claim  he  was  never
diagnosed with asthma before entering  the  service,  however  he  did  have
allergic rhinitis, and a strong family history of  asthma,  both  indicators
of  possible  underlying  bronchial  hyper-activity   (not   an   absolute).
Individuals without  a  history  of  asthma  are  routinely  identified  who
develop   respiratory    symptoms    attributed    to    reactive    airways
bronchoconstriction  during  initial  military  training.   The  applicant's
experience  during  training  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.

Erroneous Enlistment is one that would not have occurred  had  the  relevant
facts been known by the Air Force and it was not the  result  of  fraudulent
conduct on the part of the member.  Thus, the BCMR Medical Consultant is  of
the opinion that no change in the records is warranted;  however  the  Board
may consider changing  the  narrative  reason  to  "Failed  medical/physical
procurement standards" (SPD Code: JFW; with accompanying RE code of 4C).

The BCMR Medical Consultant's evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD recommended denial of  applicants  request  to  have  his  medical
condition for asthma  considered  service-connected  or  aggravated  by  his
military service and disapproval of the award  of  a  disability  discharge.
His military records revealed he was diagnosed  with  asthma  shortly  after
entering technical training.  His asthma  was  considered  to  have  existed
prior to his entrance on  active  duty  and  not  considered  to  have  been
service aggravated.  In February 2002, administrative discharge  action  was
initiated due to continued respiratory problems.  The discharge  action  was
found legally sufficient, approved by the discharge authority,  and  he  was
subsequently separated with an uncharacterized entry-level discharge.

The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPRS states that on  25  February  2002,  the  applicant  acknowledged
receipt of his notification  for  discharge  and  understood  his  right  to
consult with counsel and submit statements in his  behalf.   He  waived  his
right to consult with counsel and to  submit  statements.   Based  upon  the
documentation on file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge  regulation.   The  discharge  was
within  the  discretion  of  the  discharge   authority.    Therefore,   his
uncharacterized character of service  is  correct  and  in  accordance  with
Department   of   Defense   and   Air   Force   instructions.    An   entry-
level/uncharacterized separation  should  not  be  viewed  as  negative  and
should not be confused with other types of separations.

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.  He did not have asthma.  A number  of  other  airmen  in
his dorm were also sick at the time.  Some were  admitted  to  the  hospital
and allowed to recover while  others  were  sent  home  with  an  "erroneous
enlistment."  He was not given a chance  to  recover  from  the  bronchitis.
The advisory states he was provided an opportunity to seek counsel  but  did
not.  He was told  by  numerous  individuals  on  the  base,  including  his
training officers, that seeking counsel would cause  nothing  but  problems.
He was told he could not retrain, even  though  he  qualified  for  numerous
other jobs.  Applicant asks that  he  be  allowed  to  be  reexamined  by  a
physician in Boston to see if he is able to return to the Air Force.

His complete submission 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.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however,  it  is  our
opinion that the reason and authority for  his  discharge  were  appropriate
under the circumstances.  We find no  evidence  that  a  physical  condition
existed  that  would  have  warranted  processing  through  the   disability
evaluation system  in  accordance  with  the  governing  instruction,  which
implements the law.  We agree with the BCMR Medical  Consultant  that  under
the   circumstances   of   this   case,   the   narrative   reason   "Failed
Medical/Physical Procurement  Standards"  more  appropriately  reflects  the
reason  for  his  discharge,  and  we   note   the   correction   has   been
administratively accomplished.  In view of the above, we find no  compelling
reason 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-
01556 in Executive Session on 31 Mar 04, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Leslie E. Abbott, Member
      Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Sep 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 Sep 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 13 Jan 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Feb 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Feb 04.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Mar 04.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair