RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03679
		INDEX NUMBER:  145.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her narrative reason for separation be changed to reflect she 
was separated for medical reasons and her Reenlistment 
Eligibility (RE) code be changed so she can pursue a commission 
in the Air Force.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her narrative reason for separation and characterization of 
discharge does not reflect she served honorably.  The record 
does not reflect she was separated due to medical reasons which 
precluded her from completing technical training in her primary 
specialty of Security Forces.  She was not offered training in 
an alternate career field.

In support of her request, the applicant submits a copy of her 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, excerpts from her medical records dated 13 Dec 06 and 14 
Nov 06, DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge 
from the Armed Forces of the United States, and AFI 36-2606, 
Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, Table 3.2, 
Conditions Barring Immediate Reenlistment.

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

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 Nov 03, 
for a period of 4 years.  On 22 Apr 04, she was notified by her 
commander that she was recommending that she be discharged from 
the Air Force for erroneous enlistment.  The basis for the 
action was the SF 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care, 
dated 24 Mar 04, which indicated she was diagnosed with asthma.  
It was determined that her condition existed prior to service 
(EPTS) and was not permanently aggravated by service.  Had the 
Air Force been aware of this condition prior to her enlistment 
she would have been ineligible for military service.  
She was advised of her rights, waived her right to consult 
counsel, and elected not to submit statements on her own behalf.  
The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally 
sufficient to support discharge.  The discharge authority 
approved the discharge of erroneous entry and ordered an 
uncharacterized entry-level separation without probation or 
rehabilitation.  On 5 May 04, she was administratively 
discharged with an uncharacterized entry-level separation, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of 
Airmen, (Erroneous Entry).  She received an RE code of 2C 
“Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry 
level separation without characterization of service”.  She 
served 5 months and 12 days total active service.

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial and states, in part, there is no 
error or injustice noted.  A review of the applicant’s records 
revealed she was formally notified by her commander and approved 
for discharge due to an erroneous enlistment, specifically 
asthma.  She was involuntarily discharged based on a medical 
condition that was determined to exist prior to service, as 
shown in her medical documentation.

The complete DPSOA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit 
C.

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial and indicates, that based upon the 
documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the 
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge 
regulation.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or 
identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge 
processing.  She provided no facts warranting a change to her 
narrative reason.

Airman are given entry-level separation/uncharacterized service 
characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 
days continuous active service.  The Department of Defense (DoD) 
determined if a member served less than 180 days continuous 
active service, it would be unfair to the member and the service 
to characterize their limited service.  Therefore, her 
uncharacterized character of service is correct and in 
accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions.

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The DD Form 149 she submitted on 30 Oct 07, should include 
treatment and separation due to asthma and bilateral stress 
fractures.  The records appear to be incomplete.  The records 
which do not appear in the advisory opinion are referred to in 
the DD Form 293, which was returned to her along with 
examination and treatment records.  Post separation treatment 
records by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and 
disability adjudication for asthma rating and appeal 
adjudication for bilateral stress fractures were also submitted.  
The DD Form 293 she submitted should reflect a 10 percent 
service connected rating for asthma and she is appealing for a 
bilateral stress fractures decision.  She believes it is 
imperative that the office of primary responsibility (OPR) 
should consider these records prior to submitting an opinion to 
the Board.

The applicant’s response is at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________
_

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial and states, in 
part, that he finds no inequity or impropriety committed in the 
processing of the applicant’s discharge. He also recommends 
denial of her request to change her narrative reason for 
separation and RE code.

The applicant has been diagnosed with a medical condition that 
is incompatible with the rigors of military service.  Her asthma 
was diagnosed early following her entry on active duty, such 
that it was determined that her condition could not have first 
begun so soon after entering military service.

Although it is conceivable that she could receive a waiver to 
re-enter military service, after showing radiographic evidence 
of healing of her stress fractures, it is more than likely that 
her co-morbid asthma diagnosis would supersede any 
considerations for returning her to military service.  The BCMR 
Medical Consultant finds this particularly relevant in the 
context of the austere operational environments and extreme 
physical stressors confronting all members of today’s Air and 
Space Expeditionary Force.  Further, her asthma would likely 
continue to prohibit her utilization as a Total Force asset, 
even if she is cross-trained into an alternate career field.

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

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The entry level separation reenlistment code reflected on her DD 
Form 214, item 27 is “2C”, which is an erroneous enlistment.  
This is contrary according to the Chronological Record of 
Medical Care, dated 24 Mar 04.  That entry indicates she was 
processed for an administrative separation in lieu of a Medical 
Evaluation Board, and not the erroneous enlistment as reflected 
on her DD Form 214.  The BCMR Medical Consultant’s opinion does 
not reflect any of this evidence.  Also, the bilateral stress 
fractures were incurred in the line of duty (LOD).  This fact is 
essential to the entitlement to a determination by a MEB, prior 
to the administrative discharge, which is based solely on the 
medical asthma that is just short of the 180 days of continuous 
active service.  The non-applicability of a MEB is clearly an 
error or injustice, because it does not consider the LOD full 
extent of the medical injuries of the bilateral stress fractures 
that warranted early separation from active service, and the 
test results which indicate asthma.

Hypothetically, if the bilateral stress fractures had been 
presented as incurred in the LOD, the active service time would 
have exceeded the 180 days and the Law under Title 10 would be 
applicable.  However, the severity of the bilateral stress 
fractures incurred in the LOD being erroneously or unjustly left 
out of her medical records dated, 24 Mar 04, and the 17 Mar 08, 
Medical Consultant’s advisory opinion in this case is unfair.  A 
determination that her stress fracture was in the LOD by the Air 
Force would restore her to the privileges and rights under the 
Law for early separation from active service due to medical 
reasons.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit I.

________________________________________________________________
_

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 to warrant 
changing her discharge characterization or her RE code.  The 
Board notes the evidence of records shows that the applicant was 
separated from the Air Force for erroneous enlistment based on a 
diagnosis of asthma.  Her condition was diagnosed within 180 
days following her entry on active duty.  As such, in accordance 
with Air Force instructions in effect at that time, it was 
determined that her condition existed prior to service and was 
not permanently aggravated by service.  Further, we believe that 
the RE code that was assigned at the time of her separation 
accurately reflects the circumstances of her separation, and 
evidence has not been provided that would lead us to believe 
otherwise.  We took notice of the applicant's complete 
submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree 
with the opinions and recommendations of the offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt their 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 compelling basis to recommend granting 
the relief sought in this application.

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 this application 
in Executive Session on 10 Jul 08, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:

		Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
		Ms. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member
		Ms. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2007-03679:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Oct 07, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  AFPC/DPSOA, dated 27 Dec 07, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.  AFPC/DPSOS, dated 28 Jan 08.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Feb 08.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 19 Feb 08.
	Exhibit G.  BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 Mar 08.
	Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Mar 08.
	Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Apr 08, w/atch.




		   XXXXXXXXXXXXX
		   Panel Chair