ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02027
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests his record be
changed to show he is fit for duty and returned to active duty retroactive
to his date of separation. In addition, he be cross-trained into another
career field.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 27
June 1990. He was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-
5), with an effective date and date of rank of 1 August 1996. The
applicant was evaluated through the military Disability Evaluation System
(DES) in 2001 and all reviewing Physical Evaluation Boards (PEBs) found the
applicant’s asthma unfitting for continued military service. Based on
these findings, the PEBs recommend he be discharged with severance pay,
with a ten percent disability rating. Following the Secretary of the Air
Force Personnel Council’s (SAFPC) review of the applicant’s rebuttal
comments, the evidence and testimony presented to the PEBs, they concurred
with the recommendation of the PEBs and directed the applicant be
discharged with severance pay, with a ten percent disability rating. The
applicant was disability discharged in the grade of E-5 with severance pay
on 14 August 2001, due to the findings of mild intermittent to persistent
asthma, after 11 years, 1 month and 17 days on active duty.
A similar appeal was considered and denied by the Board on 8 June 2004. A
summary of the evidence considered by the Board and the rationale for its
decision is set forth in the Record of Proceedings, which is attached at
Exhibit K.
The applicant submitted a request for reconsideration, contending that
people do not have asthma one day and it is gone the next. He never had
asthma and is fit for duty. He has provided the following additional
information, which includes his latest Pulmonary Function test,
Methacholine challenge administered at Audi Murphy Veterans Hospital and a
current physical performed by MEPS in San Antonio, TX. These tests are
provided to refute the diagnosis of asthma made by the original PEB, FPEB,
SAFPC and the AFBCMR. The newly presented information clearly indicates
that the original tests were incorrect. The applicant’s complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit L.
Information extracted from applicant’s rebuttal submission reveals he was
found medically qualified for enlistment in the Air Force Reserve by the HQ
Air Force Reserve Command Surgeon on 8 February 2005, with an approved
waiver. He enlisted in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of staff
sergeant (E-5) on 17 February 2005 for a period of six years. Information
extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) reveals the
applicant was promoted to the Reserve grade of technical sergeant (E-6),
with an effective date and date of rank of 1 July 2005.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the
applicant’s record is warranted. The BCMR Medical Consultant states that
the applicant’s recent negative exercise and methacholine
bronchoprovocation tests do not overcome his history of intermittent
asthma/reactive airways disease demonstrated while in service. Evidence of
the record clearly establishes the presence of unfitting intermittent
asthma while in service and his recent normal testing does not show there
was an error. The fact that he is doing well now does not change his
history of intermittent asthma/reactive airways disease. A history of
asthma or reactive airways disease, even if presently inactive, is
disqualifying for reentry. The applicant’s history of asthma (or reactive
airways disease) predicts he is at an increased risk for recurrent problems
when exposed to the operational environments and if on active duty, would
require assignment limitations inconsistent with the needs of the Air
Force. Details of his evaluation are at Exhibit M.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Having been provided the advisory opinion, the applicant submitted a
personal statement for the Board’s review in which he states the additional
information submitted contained documents clearing him to enlist into the
Air Force Reserve by an Air Force flight doctor and by the Air Force
Reserve Surgeon General. His ability to enlist into the Reserve was based
on the medical documents he has recently provided to the Board. If he was
not fit for duty, the Air Force Reserve would not have cleared him
medically for continued service in the Air Force. He has proven the
Medical Consultant’s diagnosis is wrong and passed them without incident.
The six medical specialists that he has seen, all state he never had asthma
and that it was probably an allergic reaction to something. All the
medical personnel he has seen have said that “asthma is like being
pregnant, either you are or you are not.” Asthma does not come and go. He
has taken every test available and provided the Board with the results
which have indicated normal, or negative for asthma. The applicant’s
complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit O.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided in
support of the appeal, we are of the opinion that some relief is warranted.
In this respect, we note the applicant was recently approved as medically
qualified for enlistment in the Air Force Reserve, with a waiver. Although
the applicant is currently in the Air Force Reserve, it should be noted
that the standards for service in the Regular Air Force differ from the Air
Force Reserve. In addition, it is clear the applicant was experiencing
some medical problems during the period 2000 to 2001 preceding his
separation. No evidence has been provided showing the information in his
medical records is in error or that his treatment was based on factors
other than his symptoms at that time and accepted medical principles. We,
therefore, believe his separation because of medical problems in 2001 was
appropriate at that time. Nevertheless, in view of the applicant’s most
recent submission and the conflicting medical information, it is
questionable as to whether the applicant may have been misdiagnosed. In
view of the above, we believe the most equitable solution would be to
approve a waiverable Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code, which would allow
whatever branch of service the applicant applies to make the determination
concerning his current medical condition. In view of the foregoing, we
recommend the applicant’s records be corrected to the extent indicated
below.
2. 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 issue(s) involved.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that, at the time of his discharge on 14
August 2001, he was issued a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “3K.”
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 10 August 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2003-02027.
Exhibit K. Record of Proceedings, dated 30 Jun 04,
with Exhibits.
Exhibit L. Applicant’s Letters, dated 8 Nov 04, with
Attachments, and 18 Feb 05, with Attachments.
Exhibit M. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 13 Apr 05.
Exhibit N. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Apr 05.
Exhibit O. Applicant’s Letter, dated 5 May 05, with
Attachments.
MICHAEL J. NOVEL
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2003-02027
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that, at the time of his
discharge on 14 August 2001, he was issued a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE)
code of “3K.”
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2003-02027-2
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit L. Information extracted from applicant’s rebuttal submission reveals he was found medically qualified for enlistment in the Air Force Reserve by the HQ Air Force Reserve Command Surgeon on 8 February 2005, with an approved waiver. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the applicant’s record is warranted. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02027
The BCMR Medical Consultant states that, although the applicant’s asthma may be mild, it has resulted in duty limitations that are not compatible with a fully fit and vital force and poses requirements that the Physical Evaluation Boards and Air Force Personnel Council previously determined to be unreasonable. The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) reviewed the evidence and testimony presented by the FPEB and IPEB, including service medical record and the medical summary...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01947
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPPD recommends the application be denied, and states, in part the applicant was processed through the Disability Evaluation System (DES) and was found unfit for continued military service based on asthma which existed prior to service. The applicant contends the determination that her asthma existed prior to her service was solely based on the single sentence in the MEB that she reported using an...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02345
The PEB recommended that he be discharged. 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%. He was diagnosed with asthma based on a clinical history consistent with the disease and positive methacholine bronchoprovocation testing.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02666
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. BCMR Medical Consultant’s Note: The Methacholine Challenge Test is a method of diagnosing asthma, especially in adults where their medical history of asthma is uncertain and routine pulmonary function tests are normal. The Methacholine Challenge Test is considered accurate, but has certain limitations and should not be relied on for a diagnosis in a patient with symptoms strongly suggesting asthma and/or...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01107
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 03-01107 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Narrative Reason for Separation on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed so she may enlist in another service. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01757
The IPEB reviewed his case and found the member fit and recommended, "Return to Duty." BCMR Medical Consultant's complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated he sought a second opinion by pulmonologist in December 2005 and was diagnosed with asthma after having below normal pulmonary function tests. In this respect, the Board notes...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2006-01757
The IPEB reviewed his case and found the member fit and recommended, "Return to Duty." BCMR Medical Consultant's complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated he sought a second opinion by pulmonologist in December 2005 and was diagnosed with asthma after having below normal pulmonary function tests. In this respect, the Board notes...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2003-02027
The complete Medical Consultant's evaluation is at Exhibit R. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant believes he proves that he was returned to active duty on an AGR tour, he also included proof that he reenlisted and joined the Air Force (without a waiver) under a prior service program on 5 April 2006. He is still in the Air Force on full active duty. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00595
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00595 INDEX CODE: 111.00, 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 21 Aug 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Purple Heart (PH) Medal. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His reactive airways disease is a direct...