RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01041
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx     COUNSEL: NONE

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her uncharacterized entry-level separation be changed to an  honorable
discharge and her narrative reason for  separation  be  changed  to  a
medical discharge or for the convenience of the government.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was incorrectly discharged after being told she had a  preexisting
medical condition of asthma.  The medical condition was not  a  factor
prior to her entering the Air Force.

In support of her request, the applicant submits a personal statement,
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or  Discharge  from  Active  Duty,
Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)  Rating  Decision,  dated  30
December 2003, and DVA Rating Decision, dated 17 December 2003.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic  on
9 July 2002, for a term of 4 years.

On 15 October 2002, the applicant was notified by her  commander  that
he was recommending that she be discharged  from  the  Air  Force  for
erroneous enlistment.  The basis for the action was that on  2 October
2002, she was diagnosed as having  asthma.   It  was  determined  this
condition existed prior to service and was not permanently  aggravated
by service.

She was advised of her rights in this matter and after consulting with
counsel  submitted  a  statement  requesting  retraining  in  lieu  of
discharge.  The base legal office  reviewed  the  case  and  found  it
legally sufficient to support  separation.   The  discharge  authority
approved  the  discharge   of   erroneous   entry   and   ordered   an
uncharacterized entry-level separation.  On 21 November 2002, she  was
administratively  discharged  with  an   uncharacterized   entry-level
separation, under the  provisions  of  AFPD  36-32  and  AFI  36-3208,
Administrative Separation  of  Airman,  (Erroneous  Enlistment).   She
received a RE code of 2C ”Involuntarily separated  with  an  honorable
discharge; or  entry  level  separation  without  characterization  of
service.”  She served 4 months and 13 days total active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  applicant  was
administratively discharged  with  an  entry-level  separation  for  a
chronic obstructive lung disease that was felt to be severe persistent
asthma.  Due to the mild nature of her  symptoms,  essentially  cough,
the limited reversibility  with  bronchodilator  medication,  and  the
severe obstructive defect found, her obstructive lung disease had been
present for many years and did not develop in the short period of time
she was on active duty.   Although  her  history  of  bronchopulmonary
dysplasia  complicating  her  premature  birth  was   noted   by   her
physicians, the significance of this history was apparently not  known
to them.

Bronchopulmonary dysplasia  is  a  chronic  lung  disease  that  often
develops after mechanical ventilation in prematurely born infants with
respiratory failure (due to hyaline  lung  disease).   Although  often
asymptomatic,  most  adolescents  and  young  adults  who  were   born
prematurely  with  hyaline  lung  disease  and   developed   secondary
bronchopulmonary  dysfunction  demonstrate  residual  chronic  airways
obstruction,  and  varying  degrees  of   reactive   airways   disease
(bronchoconstriction manifesting  as  cough,  wheezing,  shortness  of
breath and partial reversibility of  obstruction  with  bronchodilator
medication on lung testing).  This occurs in the absence  of  allergic
disease or a demonstrated family history of asthma.  Such  individuals
are also at  increased  risk  for  the  development  of  asthma.   The
applicant’s clinical  history  as  recorded  in  the  service  medical
records and her pulmonary function testing  is  completely  consistent
with the chronic residuals of bronchopulmonary dysfunction incurred as
a premature infant.  New or recent onset  asthma  with  the  pulmonary
function testing abnormalities shown would  manifest  clinically  with
dramatically worse symptoms and physical  examination  findings.   The
reviewer concludes that the applicant’s chronic lung  disease  existed
prior to service and was not permanently aggravated by service and did
not warrant referral into the disability evaluation system.

The applicant provides as evidence  a  DVA  rating  decision  granting
service-connected compensation for asthma.  Operating under  different
laws with a different purpose, determinations made by  the  DOD  under
Title 10 and the DVA under Title 38 are not binding on the other.  The
preponderance of the evidence and accepted  medical  principles  shows
that the applicant’s lung condition existed prior to service  and  was
not permanently aggravated by service.

Airmen are  in  entry-level  status  during  the  first  180  days  of
continuous active military service and if  administratively  separated
during this period receive an entry-level separation.  This  discharge
does not attempt to characterize the type of service as either good or
bad.  It is possible for an individual to  receive  a  discharge  with
characterization of service.  An honorable characterization  is  given
by the Secretary of the Air Force when  it  is  clearly  warranted  by
unusual circumstances of personal conduct and performance of  military
duty.  Erroneous enlistment is one 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.

Action  and  disposition  in  this  case  are  proper  and   equitable
reflecting compliance with Air Force  directives  that  implement  the
law.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that she has no comments  regarding  the  medical
explanation.  Her purpose of the application is based on the  type  of
separation  she  received.   She  doesn’t  feel  that   an   erroneous
enlistment separation is in order in this case.  She states  that  she
held nothing back from the Air Force when she enlisted, did  her  best
to stay on active duty and the time  she  spent  on  active  duty  was
served honorably in nature.

She was not aware of the nature of her  childhood  breathing  problems
and no problems were detected during the enlistment process.   Whether
or not military service did or did not make her condition worse is not
clear, but it wasn’t until she was put through military training  that
her breathing conditions presented itself.

The applicant requests her discharge be changed to honorable and  that
the narrative reason for separation be changed to convenience  of  the
government.  She believes the circumstances that occurred were not her
fault and believes the time she spent in  the  Air  Force  was  served
honorably.  She further states that when applying for employment and a
review of her discharge is conducted, a dark cloud  appears  over  the
wording of uncharacterized and erroneous enlistment.  She concludes by
saying she sees no harm or cost to the  government  in  approving  her
request.  It will simply correct an unpleasant situation.

Her complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.   Based  on  the  evidence  of
record, the majority of the Board is persuaded  that  the  applicant’s
chronic lung disease existed prior to  service,  was  not  permanently
aggravated by service and did not warrant referral into the disability
evaluation  system.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant’s  complete
submission in judging the merits of the case, however; the majority of
the Board agrees with the opinions and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the  basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the  victim  of  an
error or injustice.  In view of the above, the majority of  the  Board
finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief  sought  in
this application.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the  panel  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket  Number  BC-2004-
01041 in Executive Session on 13 January 2005, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
                 Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of  the  application.
Ms. Mulligan voted to correct the records but does not wish to  submit
a Minority Report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Apr 04, w/atch.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 13 Dec 04.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Dec 04.
      Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Dec 04.





      RICHARD A. PETERSON
      Panel Chair