RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00886
INDEX CODE: 110.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 23 SEP 08
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be reinstated to active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Due to a wrongful diagnosis of mild asthma, he was medically discharged.
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:
A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened on 6 September 2005 and referred
his case to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) with a diagnosis
of mild persistent asthma. On 27 September 2005, the IPEB found him unfit
for further military service based on a diagnosis of mild persistent
asthma. The IPEB recommended that he be discharged with a combined
compensable rating of 10%. The applicant agreed with the findings and
recommended disposition of the IPEB. The Office of the Secretary of the
Air Force directed that he be discharged with severance pay effective 2
December 2005. He served 7 years, 5 months, and 16 days on active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPD recommends denial. DPPD states the IPEB reviewed documents
submitted by the applicant, as well as the narrative summary and associated
documents from the original MEB package. The IPEB notes that the applicant
was diagnosed with mild persistent asthma, provided asthma education, and
instituted an asthma treatment plan. There was no methacholine challenge
test in the original MEB package, but the three spirometries with
documented response to medication were highly suggestive of asthma,
although perhaps not 100% diagnostic. The Board notes that the applicant’s
primary physician actually considered the diagnosis of GERD and prescribed
a therapeutic trial of Zantac, to which he did not respond.
Symptoms described at the time of the original MEB included chest pain,
“can’t breathe,” pyrosis, and fatigue. Whether or not the applicant had
asthma, and whether or not he had bronchospasm, the history, evaluation,
and clinical course were highly suggestive of jet-fuel sensitivity. The
fact that the applicant has had no subsequent symptoms (after being removed
from his job involving fuels) and now has normal spirometry is compatible
with this diagnosis. The applicant’s diagnosis may be more correctly
called “respiratory sensitivity to jet fuel” rather than “asthma,” but the
recommendation for discharge with severance pay at a 10% rating would be
the same.
The preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred
during the disability process or at the time of separation. If the
applicant wants to pursue the option of returning to active duty he could
apply to HQ Recruiting Service for a waiver.
The DPPD complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 27 April 2007, the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review
and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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 warranting reinstatement. The
applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and we
agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt its
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been
the victim of an error or injustice. It appears the Disability Evaluation
System properly evaluated and rated the applicant and he concurred with the
IPEB findings. Also, he 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.
4. Notwithstanding the fact that the reenlistment code issued at the
time of the applicant's separation was in accordance with the applicable
regulations, we believe that based on the particular circumstance of this
case, he should be given an opportunity to request a waiver to serve in the
Air Force. Whether or not he is successful will depend on the needs of the
service and our recommendation in no way guarantees that he will be allowed
to return to the Air Force or any other branch of service. Accordingly, we
recommend his records be corrected to the extent indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________
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 his discharge on 2
December 2005, his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code was 3K.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-
00886 in Executive Session on 13 Jun 07, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Panel Chair
Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Mar 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 16 Apr 07.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Apr 07.
MICHAEL V. BARBINO
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2007-00886
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to XXX be corrected to show that at the time of his discharge on 2
December 2005, his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code was 3K.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02027
The BCMR Medical Consultant states that, although the applicant’s asthma may be mild, it has resulted in duty limitations that are not compatible with a fully fit and vital force and poses requirements that the Physical Evaluation Boards and Air Force Personnel Council previously determined to be unreasonable. The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) reviewed the evidence and testimony presented by the FPEB and IPEB, including service medical record and the medical summary...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: c >. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, reviewed this application and states that while there can be no change in the reason for the applicant's separation, it would seem appropriate to consider a change in his reenlistment eligibility code to accommodate his desire to return to the military, with waiver if he is otherwise qualified for commissioning. However, the Air Force Board .for Correction of...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01109
We note the BCMR Medical Consultant states that had the applicant indeed completed a MEB in 2004 and was found unfit by a PEB, his case would have been referred to SAFPC for a final disposition. In this respect, we note that the applicant in PD2009-00221 was initially referred to the PEB for asthma, mild persistent and found unfit for continued military service and separated with a 10 percent disability rating, whereas in the case before us, there is no evidence the he was unable to perform...
On 9 April 1999, an IPEB convened and based on the diagnosis of asthma, mild, persistent, recommended the applicant be discharged with severance pay, with a 10% disability rating. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPD recommends the applicant be allowed to apply for active duty through an Air Force Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS), where he can be reexamined within military channels to determine if he can meet current medical standards for active...
The Board consequently found the member unfit for military service for his condition of asthma and recommended he be discharged with severance pay with a 10 percent disability rating. The evidence of record indicates that the applicant was honorably discharged by reason of physical disability, with entitlement to severance pay after being diagnosed with asthma. We took note of the applicant’s requests that his records be corrected to show that he was not discharged by reason of...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01634
She sought care in Sep 03 and was diagnosed with asthma based on clinical history and PFTs showing mild obstruction to airflow and response to treatment with bronchodilator. Medical standards for continued military duty indicate that asthma, recurrent bronchospasm, or reactive airway disease, unless due to well- defined avoidable precipitant cause is disqualifying for worldwide duty. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01291
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His condition is the result of exposure to jet fuel, several glues and cleaning chemical agents required in making repairs performing his duties as an Aircraft Fuels Systems Mechanic. The Medical Consultant Evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant responded that he was a smoker during...
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 | CY2008 | BC-1997-03689-2
His medical condition has changed and improved since his last evaluation by the Air Force in March 1996. The ROTC cadet command referred back to his original Medical Evaluation Board ruling without consideration of his improved condition. The BCMR Medical Consultant notes that while the applicant reports he has improved his exercise tolerance, asthma is a condition that can remain symptom free over extended periods (as evidenced by his recurrence of asthma on active duty after over 10...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00811
On 15 August 2005, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) reviewed the applicant’s records and referred the applicant’s case to an IPEB for further evaluation. The IPEB findings stated the applicant’s condition did not prevent her from reasonably performing her duties of her office, grade, rank, or rating; nor did it interfere with her day-to-day duties. On 18 December 2006, the applicant submitted a hardship request for a 9-12 month extension to allow surgery for both ankles and recuperation time.