RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01947
                                             INDEX CODE:  100.00
      XXXXXXX                           COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  14 December 2006


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for her separation be changed to “Disability - Did  not
exist prior to service,” and she receive severance pay.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There was insufficient  evidence  to  prove  her  asthma  existed  prior  to
service.  However, due to a dictation error, an incorrect entry  was  placed
in her medical records that indicated  she  used  an  inhaler  as  a  child,
rather than that she does not recall using an inhaler as a child.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) has  denied  her  service-connected
disability compensation  for  asthma  based  on  normal  pulmonary  function
testing results and a chest x-ray which revealed no lung  damage  consistent
with that of an asthmatic person.  More than likely, evidence of asthma  did
not set in until after the birth of her son due to hormonal changes  and  or
being chemically induced because she has never had problems with exercise.

In support of the appeal,  applicant  submits  her  personal  statement  and
extracts from her medical records.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  24
September 1997.  On 15 March 2002, she  reenlisted  for  a  period  of  four
years.


Based on a pulmonary function test (PFT) result indicating she  had  asthma,
she was referred to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).  The  MEB  recommended
she be referred to an Informal Physical  Evaluation  Board  (IPEB).   On  27
January 2004, the IPEB recommended she be discharged based on the  diagnosis
of asthma associated with seasonal allergies, rated  at  10  percent,  which
existed prior to service (EPTS).  She did not concur with the IPEB  findings
and recommendation, contending that  she  either  be  returned  to  duty  or
receive a service-connection, and requested a formal hearing.  On  20  April
2004,  a  Formal  PEB  (FPEB)  sustained  the  findings  of  the  IPEB   and
recommended she be discharged.  She appealed  the  FPEB’s  decision  to  the
Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) and submitted  rebuttal
comments.  On 10 June 2004, the SAFPC concluded her allergic asthma  was  an
evolutionary manifestation, or expected natural  progression,  of  her  pre-
existing underlying systemic allergic disorder, and announced the  Secretary
of the Air Force’s decision to direct her discharge.

On 2 August 2004, she was honorably discharged under the provisions  of  AFR
36-3208 (Disability - Existed Prior to Service, PEB  -  No  Severance  Pay).
She completed 6 years 10 months, and 9 days of active service.

On 1 June 2005, the DVA  denied  service-connected  disability  compensation
for hypertension and asthma by history,  because  the  conditions  were  not
related to her military service.

________________________________________________________________

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.  This determination  was  made  based  on  medical
evaluation of  the  applicant  and  may  not  be  consistent  with  the  DVA
findings.

The AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the  records
is warranted.  The BCMR Medical Consultant states, in  part,  that  military
standards for  continued  military  duty  indicate  that  asthma,  recurrent
bronchospasm, or  reactive  airway  disease,  unless  due  to  well  defined
avoidable precipitant cause, are  disqualifying  for  worldwide  duty.   The
medical standards are  broader  than  a  defined  diagnosis  of  asthma  and
include reactive airways that may not  meet  the  strict  criteria  for  the
clinical diagnosis of  asthma.   Air  Force  policy  with  regard  to  these
conditions is reinforced  by  past  experience  with  the  high  numbers  of
medical casualties due to asthma and reactive airway  disease,  particularly
in members deployed to overseas locations.  In  the  applicant’s  case,  her
history of asthma symptoms and allergies, her family history of asthma,  and
abnormal bronchoprovocation testing, are consistent with  her  diagnosis  of
asthma.  Normal pulmonary function testing does not exclude a  diagnosis  of
asthma or reactive airway disease, since individuals with  these  conditions
will have normal pulmonary function tests in  between  episodes.   In  fact,
reversibility is a hallmark of these  conditions.   Although  she  may  have
only mild asthma or may not even currently meet the strict definition for  a
definitive  diagnosis,  the  history  of  symptoms  and   bronchoprovocation
testing results consistent with mild asthma or reactive airway disease,  are
considered disqualifying for worldwide duty.  Her medical history  indicates
she is at risk for unpredictable recurrent problems when  subjected  to  the
rigors of military operational environments.   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  inhaler  as  a
child.  However, she completed a 19 September 2003 questionnaire,  in  which
she clearly reported symptoms consistent with  mild  asthma  since  age  10.
This is  consistent  with  the  PEB’s  determination  that  her  respiratory
conditions associated with her  history  of  significant  allergies  existed
prior to  service.   Further,  the  post-service  medical  documentation  is
consistent with the PEB’s conclusion that her condition was not  permanently
aggravated by her military service.

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Complete copies of the evaluations were forwarded to  the  applicant  on  15
July 2005 and 13  July  2006,  for  review  and  comment,  within  30  days.
However, as of this date, no response has been received by this office.

________________________________________________________________

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  BCMR  Medical   Consultant   has
thoroughly reviewed the evidence of record and provided  extensive  comments
regarding the medical issues of this case, in  which  he  ultimately  opines
that no change in the records is warranted.  In deference  to  the  comments
of the BCMR  Medical  Consultant,  which  appear  to  be  supported  by  the
evidence of record, and since the  applicant  has  not  provided  sufficient
evidence to refute that  her  respiratory  conditions  associated  with  her
history of significant allergies  existed  prior  to  service,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend favorable consideration of her request.

________________________________________________________________

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-2005-01947
in Executive Session on 22 August 2006, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Robert H. Altman, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member
                       Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Jun 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memo, AFPC/DPPD, dated 28 Jun 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Jul 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, C/M Skelton, dated 31 Oct 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Memo, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 10 Jul 06.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Jul 06.




                                   ROBERT H. ALTMAN
                                   Panel Chair