RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03273
            INDEX CODE:  100.06

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  4 May 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4C be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She does not have asthma, and believes she has met the  standards  for
enlistment and should be allowed to  reenlist  in  the  service.   She
would like to serve her country  in  the  armed  forces,  and  she  is
physically fit to meet the challenges that lie ahead.

In  support  of  her  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  an   expanded
statement, medical documentation,  and  documents  pertaining  to  her
separation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 4 May 04 for  a  period
of six years in the grade of airman.

On 11 Jun 04, the applicant’s  commander  notified  her  that  he  was
recommending she be  discharged  for  an  erroneous  enlistment.   The
reason for this action was the receipt of a medical narrative  summary
that found the applicant did not meet  minimum  medical  standards  to
enlist.  The commander indicated the applicant should  not  have  been
allowed to join the Air Force because of her  asthma.   The  applicant
was advised of her rights in  the  matter  and  that  an  entry  level
separation would be recommended.

On 14 Jun 04, the  office  of  the  Staff  Judge  Advocate  found  the
discharge case file to  be  legally  sufficient  and  recommended  the
applicant be given an entry level separation.  The discharge authority
approved the applicant’s separation and directed she be given an entry
level separation with uncharacterized service.

On 16 Jun 04, the applicant was separated under the provisions of  AFI
36-3208 (Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards) and  given  an
entry level separation with uncharacterized service.  She was assigned
an RE code of 4C  (Separated  for  concealment  of  juvenile  records,
minority, failure to meet physical standards for  enlistment,  failure
to attain a 9.0 reading grade level  as  measured  by  the  Air  Force
Reading  Abilities  Test  (AFRAT),  or  void  enlistments).   She  was
credited with 1 month and 13 days of active service.

The remaining facts pertaining to the applicant’s medical  issues  are
discussed in the advisory  opinion  provided  by  the  AFBCMR  Medical
Consultant at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Medical Consultant  recommended  denial  noting  that  during  her
enlistment medical examination, she completed a DD Form  2807,  Report
of Medical History.  On that form, she  check  “No”  to  the  question
“Have you ever had or do  you  now  have:   asthma  or  any  breathing
problems related to exercise,  weather,  pollens,  etc;  shortness  of
breath;  bronchitis;  wheezing  or  problems   with   wheezing;   been
prescribed or used an inhaler; a chronic cough  or  cough  at  night.”
During the third week of her basic  training,  she  presented  to  the
clinic for symptoms of shortness of breath consistent with  asthma  or
reactive airways disease and was referred to the  allergy  clinic  for
evaluation.

According  to  the  Medical  Consultant,  the  applicant   experienced
shortness of breath and wheezing that interfered with her training and
was evaluated by  the  allergy  clinic  showing  a  markedly  positive
bronchoprovocation  test.   Her   positive   bronchoprovocation   test
combined with her several year history  of  exertional  symptoms  with
relief by use of an inhaler was clearly consistent with a diagnosis of
asthma.  According to standard allergy clinic protocol, the Air  Force
allergist ascertained there was no active viral respiratory  infection
at the time of testing that might affect the results of the test.  The
clinical history and findings on examination  were  disqualifying  for
entry into military service and  the  applicant  was  administratively
discharged in accordance with policy and procedure.

The Medical Consultant indicated that although the applicant  may  not
have asthma by strict clinical definition, she  demonstrated  symptoms
consistent with abnormal reactive airways during basic  training  that
prevented training.  The Air Force and other  military  services  have
become very strict with regard to asthma and reactive airways  disease
based on past experience with the high number  of  medical  casualties
due to asthma and reactive airways  disease  in  members  deployed  to
operational and overseas locations.  The  combined  effects  of  harsh
environments with  regard  to  air  quality  (dusts,  molds,  pollens,
pollutants, humidity, heat or cold, lack of  air  conditioning),  high
rates  of  respiratory  tract  infections  (related  to  travel,   new
locations with new infectious agents, close quarters living  and  work
environments, and mixing of individuals from  different  places),  and
stressful physical exertion result in  significant  problems  even  in
members with a remote history of asthma or with a  history  of  merely
reactive airways disease.  The applicant's experience during  training
and her positive histamine bronchoprovocation test indicated she is at
considerably higher risk for recurrent problems when subjected to  the
rigors of military operational environments.  Although  not  attaining
the   threshold    for    diagnosing    asthma,    her    methacholine
bronchoprovocation test  was  sufficiently  abnormal  to  reflect  the
presence of reactive airways disease.

In the Medical Consultant’s view, action and disposition in this  case
were  proper  and  equitable  reflecting  compliance  with  Air  Force
directives which implement the law, and that no change in the  records
is warranted.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is  at  Exhibit
C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  applicant  on  18
Mar 05 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

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.   The  applicant's  complete
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  her  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, we do not find  the  applicant’s  assertions  or  the
documentation  presented  in  support  of  her   appeal   sufficiently
persuasive  to  override  the  rationale  provided  by   the   Medical
Consultant.  We note that the Secretary of the Air Force has statutory
authority  to  promulgate  rules   and   regulations   governing   the
administration of the Air Force.  In the exercise of  that  authority,
the Secretary has determined that members separated from the Air Force
would be furnished an RE code predicated upon  the  quality  of  their
service and circumstances of their separation.  The evidence of record
indicates the applicant was given an entry level separation for Failed
Medical/Physical Procurement Standards and was assigned an RE code  of
4C.  It appears the RE code was appropriately assigned and  accurately
reflected the  circumstances  of  her  separation,  and,  we  find  no
evidence to indicate the assigned RE code was in error.   In  view  of
the foregoing, and in  the  absence  of  sufficient  evidence  to  the
contrary, we conclude that no  basis  exists  to  recommend  favorable
action on the applicant’s request that her RE code of 4C  be  changed.
Notwithstanding our decision concerning this  matter,  we  believe  it
should be pointed out to the applicant that her RE code of 4C  is  one
that, based on the needs of the respective military  service,  can  be
waived by the enlistment authorities.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
2004-03273 in Executive Session on 21 Apr 05, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
      Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Oct 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 18 Mar 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Mar 05.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair