RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03849
INDEX CODE: 112.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 20 June 2008
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C be changed.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He has been cleared by his family doctor. He does not have asthma.
In support of the appeal applicant submits a note from his family
doctor stating “This patient has been seen in this office off & on for
years. He does not have and never has had asthma.”
Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 March 2003 in the
grade of airman basic for a period of four years. On 2 April 2003,
the applicant was notified by the commander that he was recommending
his discharge from the Air Force for erroneous entry. The basis for
the reason of his action was undisclosed history of asthma.
The applicant was administratively discharged with an entry-level
separation under the provisions for erroneous enlistment due to
diagnosis of asthma on 7 April 2003 after 27 days on active duty. He
was assigned a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C. RE code 2C
indicates involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or
entry level separation without characterization of service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the
records is warranted. He states, the applicant was medically
disqualified for continued duty in the Air Force based on a diagnosis
of mild intermittent asthma. Medical standards for enlistment (which
also apply to members during the first 180-days of active duty)
indicates that asthma, including reactive airway disease, exercise
induced bronchospasm or asthmatic bronchitis, reliably diagnosed at
any age, is disqualifying for enlistment, in accordance with AFI 48-
123, Attachment 3, A3.12.4. Action and disposition in this case are
proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives
that implement the law. Therefore, the BCMR Medical Consultant is of
the opinion that no change in the records is warranted.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
14 December 2006 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this
date, this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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 evidence provided does not,
in our opinion, support a finding the applicant’s discharge was
erroneous or unjust. We took notice of the applicant's complete
submission in judging the merits of the case. The evidence of record
indicates the applicant underwent bronchoprovocation testing
demonstrating abnormal airways hyperreactivity consistent with asthma.
Based on clinical history and the positive bronchoprovocation
testing, the applicant was diagnosed with mild intermittent asthma
disqualifying for military service. In view of the above, we agree
with the opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and
adopt his rationale as the basis for the conclusion that no change in
the records is warranted. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to
the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought
in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 6 February 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, undated, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 13 Dec 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Dec 06.
JAMES W. RUSSELL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00962
The applicant received an uncharacterized entry-level separation on 18 Nov 04, by reason of “Erroneous Entry (Other),” and was issued an RE code of 2C (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry-level separation without characterization of service). The applicant was administratively discharged on 18 Nov 04 with an entry level separation (uncharacterized service) for erroneous enlistment due to existing prior to service asthma after 4 months and 13 days on active duty. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01757
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01757 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, be changed from “Erroneous Enlistment.” ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01322
After reviewing the evidence of record, we believe the applicant’s narrative reason for separation is too harsh. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that at the time of her entry-level separation on 30 September 2002, the narrative reason for her separation was Secretarial Authority and Separation Program Designator was...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2003-02027A
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit L. Information extracted from applicant’s rebuttal submission reveals he was found medically qualified for enlistment in the Air Force Reserve by the HQ Air Force Reserve Command Surgeon on 8 February 2005, with an approved waiver. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the applicant’s record is warranted. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02469
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that although he contends he provided medical information for the three years up to the time of his enlistment, there is no evidence to confirm this. The Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application and states they concur with the Medical Consultant’s evaluation and recommend no...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01742
A follow-up evaluation on 19 September 1996 rendered a diagnosis of major depression vs. dysthymia and she was treated with the antidepressant medicine Prozac. The applicant’s history of recurrent major depression requiring hospitalization was clearly disqualifying for continued active duty. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01947
________________________________________________________________ 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. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2003-02027-2
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit L. Information extracted from applicant’s rebuttal submission reveals he was found medically qualified for enlistment in the Air Force Reserve by the HQ Air Force Reserve Command Surgeon on 8 February 2005, with an approved waiver. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the applicant’s record is warranted. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00357
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 2003-00357 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her entry-level separation be changed to a medical discharge. The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that he received a medical narrative summary dated 3 January 2003 that found the applicant did not meet...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01757
The IPEB reviewed his case and found the member fit and recommended, "Return to Duty." BCMR Medical Consultant's complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated he sought a second opinion by pulmonologist in December 2005 and was diagnosed with asthma after having below normal pulmonary function tests. In this respect, the Board notes...