RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03674
            INDEX CODE:  110.00, 112.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  3 JUN 08

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His entry-level separation be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed.


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He desires to reenlist.  He believes his record to be in  error  because  he
was discharged for asthma; however, he has no history of  asthma  and  since
discharge from the Air Force he has shown no signs of asthma.   He  believes
he is fit for duty and his military record should reflect the same.

In support of his request, the  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,
documents  extracted  from  his  military  personnel  record,  and   medical
documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  21  September  2004  in  the
grade of airman basic.  On 8 March  2005,  applicant  was  notified  by  his
commander of his intent to recommend that he  be  discharged  from  the  Air
Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and  AFI  36-3208,  paragraph  5.14
for erroneous enlistment.  The specific  reason  for  this  action  was  the
Chronological Record of Medical Care form,  dated  10  February  2005  which
states he was diagnosed  with  asthma.   This  condition  existed  prior  to
service and has not been permanently aggravated by  the  service.   Had  the
Air Force known this condition would prevent him  from  performing  military
duties, he would not have been allowed entry  into  the  military.   He  was
advised of his rights  in  this  matter  and  acknowledged  receipt  of  the
notification on that same date.  The applicant waived his right  to  consult
counsel and elected not to submit statements on his own behalf.  In a  legal
review of the case file, the deputy chief of adverse actions found the  case
legally sufficient and recommended  that  he  be  discharged.   On  11 March
2005,  the  discharge  authority  concurred  with  the  recommendations  and
directed that he be discharged with an  entry-level  separation.   Applicant
was discharged on 17 March 2005.  He served 5 months and 27 days  on  active
duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states based on  the  documentation  on
file in the master personnel records the discharge was consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of the  discharge  regulation.   The
discharge was within the discretion of the discharge  authority.   Applicant
did not submit any evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that
occurred in the discharge processing.

Airmen   are   given    entry-level    separation/uncharacterized    service
characterization when separation is initialed  in  the  first  180  days  of
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 applicant  and  the  service  to  characterize  their  limited
service.  Therefore, his uncharacterized character  of  service  is  correct
and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instruction.

The DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial.  DPPAE  states  the  applicant’s  RE  code  is
correct.  If the applicant is seeking  reentry  into  military  service,  he
should  have  a  physical  completed  by  military  medical  authority  that
supports his claims of no asthma before the Board approves  the  applicant’s
request.  Based  on  the  confirmatory  results,  the  Board  should  direct
correction of his RE code  to  3K  —  Reserved  for  use  by  HQ  Air  Force
Personnel Center or the Air Force Board for Correction of  Military  Records
(AFBCMR)  when  no  other  reenlistment  eligibility  code  applies  or   is
appropriate.

The DPPAE complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

AETC/SGPS recommends denial.  SGPS states the applicant entered active  duty
on 21 September 2004, completed basic training and entered  security  forces
technical training.  On 9 February 2005 he was seen at Wilford Hall  Medical
Center by medical personnel for progressively worsening shortness of  breath
(SOB) when running.  Symptoms started shortly after entering basic  training
in September 2004.  He reports he has not had  symptoms  prior  to  entering
active  duty.   An  exercise  challenge  test  revealed  a  63%  vital  lung
capacity, which was felt to be suggestive of asthma.  A histamine  challenge
was scheduled for 11 February 2005.  The applicant reviewed and agreed  with
these findings.  On 11 February 2005,  the  testing  was  delayed  until  14
February 2005, due to medication use  during  pre-pulmonary  function  tests
(PFTs).  Testing on 14 February 2005 resulted  in  a  positive  methacholine
challenge (MCCT) showing a 26.4%  drop  in  FEV1  which  was  reversed  with
bronchodilator.  Based on these findings  he  was  diagnosed  with  reactive
airway disease/asthma.  AF directives  note  that  any  history  of  asthma,
reactive airway disease or exercise induced bronco spasm  after  age  13  is
disqualifying for military service.   Separation  processing  was  initiated
and on 15 February 2005 he signed paperwork  indicating  he  understood  the
action being taken and did not wish to pursue a medical waiver to remain  on
active duty and was separated on 17 March 2005.  In August  2005  he  had  a
pulmonary function test which was reported as normal.  Based on this  normal
finding the evaluating physician did not  request  a  MCCT.   The  applicant
contends that based on his August 2005 normal  PFT  results,  he  should  be
allowed to reapply for reentry into the military.

Applicant  was  administratively  discharged  under   the   provisions   for
unsuitability due to being diagnosed  with  asthma.   Comprehensive  testing
was completed in February 2005 and based on AFI 48-123 he was not  qualified
for military service and subsequently separated from  the  Air  Force.   The
fact that the applicant reports he is  doing  well  at  this  time  and  has
normal PFTs in does not  contradict  the  diagnoses  of  the  February  2005
evaluation.  Actions and disposition in this case were proper and  equitable
reflecting compliance with Air Force directives.

The SGPS complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 21 June 2007, the evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for  review
and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F).  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 an error or injustice.  After carefully reviewing the  evidence
of record,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  the  applicant’s  uncharacterized
separation should be changed to reflect an honorable discharge.   An  entry-
level separation with uncharacterized service is used  in  cases  where  the
member has not yet completed six months of service at  the  time  separation
proceedings are initiated, as in the applicant’s case.   In  regard  to  his
request that his RE code be changed,  given  the  circumstances  surrounding
his separation from the Air Force, the RE code assigned (2C) appears  to  be
proper and in compliance with the  appropriate  directives.   The  applicant
has not provided any evidence which would  lead  us  to  believe  otherwise.
Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice; the application was  denied  without
a personal appearance; and 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-2006-
03674 in Executive Session on 26 July 2007, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

      Ms. B J White-Olson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member
      Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Nov 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Dec 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 27 Dec 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 8 Jun 07.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 07.


                                   B J WHITE-OLSON
                                   Panel Chair