RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02386

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATED: 5 DECEMBER 2005

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code “2Q” be changed so that he  may
reenlist into the Armed Forces.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has medical documentation stating that  he  never  had  asthma  and
chronic scrotal pain that does not exist.

In support of his application, applicant submits a copy of his medical
evaluation and a copy of his MEPS medical evaluation.

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
3 October 1996 for a term of 4 years.

On 14 August 2002, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened  and  the
applicant was diagnosed with  mild  intermittent  asthma  and  chronic
scrotal pain. The MEB recommended the applicant’s case be referred  to
an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).

On 11 October 2002, an IPEB  convened  and  established  diagnoses  of
chronic scrotal pain status post left orchiectomy,  mild  intermittent
asthma, and adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression. The  IPEB
found the applicant unfit  because  of  physical  disability  (chronic
scrotal pain status post left orchiectomy), that  the  disability  was
incurred while the applicant was entitled to receive basic  pay,  that
the disability was incurred in the line of duty, that  the  disability
was ratable under VA Diagnostic Code 8730 at 10 percent, and that  the
disability may be permanent. The IPEB  recommended  the  applicant  be
discharged with severance pay. The applicant agreed with the  findings
and recommended disposition of the IPEB.

On 17 October 2002, the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  directed  the
applicant  be  separated  from  active  duty  service   for   physical
disability under the provisions of 10 USC 1203, with severance pay.

On 13 November 2002, the applicant was honorably discharged under  the
provisions of AFI 36-3212 (Disability, Severance Pay). He was credited
with 6 years, 1 month, and 11 days of total active military service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

BCMR Medical Consultant is of  the  opinion  that  no  change  in  the
records is warranted. The prepondence of the medical evidence shows no
error in the disability discharge of the applicant and assignment of a
RE code of “2Q” that prevents reenlistment.  Although  the  persistent
scrotal pain that was the primary  stated  reason  for  unfitness  for
continued  military  service  has  resolved,  the   medical   evidence
indicates the applicant’s pain was inextricably  intertwined  with  an
Adjustment Disorder that significantly interfered with duty  and  also
either caused  or  exacerbated  respiratory  symptoms.  Based  on  the
totality of the evidence of the record, the Medical Consultant  opines
that the applicant is a  poor  risk  for  reenlistment  based  on  his
history of  recurrent  depressed  mood  and  diagnosis  of  Adjustment
Disorder for reasons previously outlined and concludes that action and
disposition  in  this  case  are  proper  and   equitable   reflecting
compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.

The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation  and  stated  that  he
would like the Board  to  take  into  consideration  his  injury,  the
medication he was on for over a year and the fact he was not a problem
in the Air Force until he was severely injured. He will  like  to  ask
the Board to talk to his previous  commanders  and  supervisors.  They
will tell the Board he was an exceptional airman,  that  he  performed
his job with honor  and  dignity.  He  thinks  the  recommendation  is
unfair. Every other service wants him to join and he  has  passed  the
military physical with flying colors. He  has  spent  time  and  money
seeing specialist in order for the Board to have the  facts  in  order
for his reenlistment code to be revised so he can reenlist in the  Air
Force. The Air Force needs engineers and he is willing to reenlist.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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.  After a  thorough  review  of
the  evidence  of  record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that his RE code issued at the time of his separation should
be changed.  Applicant’s contentions were duly noted; however,  we  do
not  find  these  assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,   sufficiently
persuasive to override the evidence of  record.   We  agree  with  the
opinions and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant  and  adopt
his rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the  applicant  has
not been the victim of an  error  or  injustice.   Therefore,  in  the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find  no  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought.


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  issue(s)   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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2004-02386 in Executive Session on 9 August 2005, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
            Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member
            Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Jul 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 30 Jun 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Jul 05.
    Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Response, undated.




                                   LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                   Panel Chair