RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02092
            INDEX NUMBER:  108.00
      XXXXXXXXXXX      COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His entry-level separation be changed to a medical discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was in good physical condition when he joined the Air  Force.   He
should  be  given  a  medical  discharge  based  on  his  entry-level
separation for failed medical and physical procurement standards.

When he  completed  his  medical  history  form  for  enlistment,  he
reported to personnel at the  Military  Entrance  Processing  Station
(MEPS) that he had had bronchitis and not asthma.   He  was  told  to
check yes to bronchitis.

When he got sick at basic military training  (BMT),  he  was  advised
that he had asthma and should not have been cleared at the MEPS.   He
was placed on medical hold.  He was on medical  hold  for  about  two
months and his condition never improved.

In support of his  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  copies  of
medical documents from his private physicians.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 12 Nov 02.   On
8 Jan 03, his training squadron (TRS) commander notified him that  he
was recommending his discharge  from  the  Air  Force  for  erroneous
enlistment.   The  reason  for  his  recommendation  was   that   the
applicant’s medical narrative summary, dated 13 Dec 02, found that he
did not meet the minimum medical standards to enlist.  He should  not
have been allowed to join the Air Force due to asthma.  The applicant
responded to the notification on  8  Jan  03,  waived  his  right  to
counsel, and waived his right to submit statements in his behalf.  He
also acknowledged that he would not be entitled  to  any  disability,
retirement, or severance pay if discharged for the reasons cited.  On
8 Jan 03,  the  TRS  commander  recommended  to  the  training  group
commander that the  applicant  be  discharged.   On  9  Jan  03,  the
training wing judge advocate found the case  legally  sufficient  and
recommended to the training group commander  that  the  applicant  be
discharged  with  an  entry-level  separation.   The  training  group
commander approved the applicant’s discharge on 10 Jan  03.   He  was
discharged on 14 Jan  03  for  failed  medical  physical  procurement
standards.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s
request.  Evidence of the  record  shows  the  applicant  experienced
recurrent bronchitis and two weeks of starting  basic  training,  the
applicant was experiencing symptoms consistent with asthma.   Medical
standards for enlistment (and for continued  service)  indicate  that
asthma,  including  reactive  airways   disease,   exercise   induced
bronchospasm or asthmatic bronchitis, reliably diagnosed at  any  age
is disqualifying for enlistment.  The applicant clearly had a history
of reactive airways disease existing prior to service.  It is  common
for the physical stress of basic training  to  transiently  aggravate
symptoms of  chronic  asthma.   The  applicant’s  existing  prior  to
service  condition  was  not  caused  or  permanently  aggravated  by
service.  This condition did not entitle him to disability  benefits.
None of the other conditions documented in  the  applicant’s  records
would have entitled him to disability benefits.

Airmen are in  entry-level  status  during  the  first  180  days  of
continuous service and  if  administratively  separated  during  this
period receive an uncharacterized discharge.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request.   Based  on
the evidence of record, the applicant’s discharge was consistent with
the   procedural   and   substantive   requirements   of   applicable
regulations.  The applicant  did  not  submit  any  new  evidence  or
identify any errors or injustices in the discharge process.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response, the applicant emphasizes that he is still requesting
a medical discharge.  He  states  that  he  did  not  have  any  knee
problems or hand discomfort prior to basic training.  He states  that
he was a member of the marching band for seven years and never missed
a day.

Included in the applicant’s response are comments  from  his  mother.
She states that when she sent her son to the Air  Force  he  did  not
have any type of pain, nor did he have sores on the back of his neck,
walk with a cane, or have pains in his hands.  Her son  informed  the
recruiters that he  had  bronchitis,  but  was  still  encouraged  to
enlist.  He also passed the physical exam at the MEPS.  She requested
her son’s records from both pediatricians and for the first time  saw
the word Asthmatic Bronchitis, which was never told to her.  She  was
not aware that her son had asthma until she had him tested after  his
return from the Air  Force.   She  opines  that  the  only  erroneous
enlistment was the recruiter encouraging her son to  enlist,  knowing
his condition.

The applicant’s complete response 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 agree with the opinions and recommendations  of  the  Air
Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale  as
the primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not  been
the victim of an error or injustice.   We  note  that  the  applicant
appears to believe that his  discharge  on  the  basis  of  erroneous
enlistment  is  incorrect  and  infers  that  he  lied  or  falsified
documents to gain entry into the Air Force.  This is not the  meaning
of erroneous enlistment, but fraudulent  enlistment,  which  was  not
used in the applicant’s case.  Discharge on the  basis  of  erroneous
enlistment means that the applicant’s enlistment was an error  caused
either by the Air Force not having all of the information they needed
or their failure to take the correct action.  It  appears  to  us  in
this case that the Air Force failed to take the correct action  under
the circumstances.  The applicant should have never been  allowed  to
enlist.  However, since the error did occur, the action to  discharge
him based on an erroneous enlistment is correct.  We also  took  note
of the medical problems the applicant claims to have developed during
his time in the Air Force.  He has not submitted sufficient  evidence
to support his claims and we find  it  improbable  that  his  medical
problems are due to the short period of time he was in the Air Force.
 Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been
shown that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the   issues   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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  BC-2003-
02092 in Executive Session on 21 January 2004, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
      Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
      Ms. Rita A. Maldonado, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Jun 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant,
                dated 10 Nov 03.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Dec 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Dec 03.




                                   BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                   Panel Chair