ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1997-03689-2
            INDEX CODE:  110.03
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2Q” be changed to  a  “1”  series
code which would allow him to enlist into the National Guard.
_________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF THE CASE:

The applicant submitted a similar request dated 5 Dec 97.  On 9 Jun 98,  the
Board considered  and  denied  the  applicant's  request;  however,  it  was
considered under the proforma format (Exhibit D).  Therefore,  statement  of
facts pertaining to this case is as follows:

His RE code was assigned based upon an assumption that his condition at  the
time would not resolve and he would continue to require  pharmaceutical  and
immunotherapy desensitization treatment.  His medical condition has  changed
and improved since his last evaluation by the Air Force in March 1996.   His
activities and part-time work are normally contradictive of someone who  has
a  diagnosis  of  Reactive  Airway  Disease  (RAD)/Asthma.   His  activities
include mountaineering, wilderness search and  rescue,  and  fire  fighting.
He participated in the Army ROTC program, served as a Cadet  Commander,  and
was  a  member  of  the  Ranger  Challenge  team.   During  this  time,   he
experienced no signs of respiratory distress or compromise.  In  preparation
for an ROTC contract, he  completed  and  passed  a  DOD  Maritime  Exercise
Review Board physical exam and was  cleared  by  a  physician  for  military
service.  The ROTC cadet command  referred  back  to  his  original  Medical
Evaluation Board ruling without consideration  of  his  improved  condition.
He desires to return to military  service  in  the  National  Guard  and  is
willing to conduct another physical fitness test or  methacholine  challenge
test as needed to demonstrate his improved medical condition.

In support  of  the  application,  the  applicant  submits  several  support
letters, a copy of his DD 214, his and biography.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPD recommends denial.  DPPD states 2Q is the correct reenlistment-
eligibility status  code  for  a  person  who  is  approved  for  a  medical
retirement or separation.

The complete DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit G.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE recommends denied.  DPPAE states on 7 Feb 06 officials  within
the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force determined  the  applicant  was
physically unfit for continued military service  and  direct  his  discharge
with severance pay under provisions of 10 USC 1203.  DPPAE points  out  that
if the  applicant's  condition  has  improved,  he  should  provide  medical
documentation to the enlisting service for consideration of enlistment.

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

The BCMR Medical Consultant opines no change in the  records  is  warranted.
In Oct 94, the applicant was seen in a civilian  emergency  department  with
shortness of breath and wheezing.  He was seen on 5 Jul 95 and treated  with
two different asthma medications.  On 28 Aug  95,  he  was  evaluated  by  a
pulmonologist who diagnosed the applicant with mild to moderate  asthma  and
recommended a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).  The MEB referred the case  to
the Informal Physical Evaluation Board  (IPEB).   On  14 Dec  95,  the  IPEB
recommended that the applicant be  discharged  with  severance  pay  with  a
disability rating of 10 percent.  After the applicant's appeal of  the  IPEB
findings, the case was referred to  the  Formal  Physical  Evaluation  Board
(FPEB) who  made  the  same  recommendation  as  the  IPEB.   The  applicant
concurred with the FPEB findings and was subsequently discharged.

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  quiescent  years  dating  back  to
childhood) and then suddenly appear without warning.  Returning him to  full
active duty without restrictions would imply that  he  could  and  would  be
able to perform duty in all situations and all locations  world  wide.   The
applicant had a condition that would be subject  to  exacerbations  in  some
locations, when exposed to known triggers not  easily  avoidable  and  under
austere conditions which would require significant medical care and put  him
and the mission in jeopardy.   This  represents  a  significant  respiratory
condition and is ultimately likely to prohibit his utilization  as  a  Total
Force asset well into the foreseeable future.  As  a  result,  retention  or
reenlistment would not be in the best interests of the applicant or the  Air
Force.

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant's evaluation is at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for
review and comment within 30 days on 1 Jun 07 and 26 Oct  07,  respectively.
As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D & I).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After careful consideration of the applicant’s reconsideration  request  and
the documentation submitted in support of his appeal, we are  not  persuaded
to  override  the  Board's  original  decision.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;  however,
we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Medical  Consultant
and adopt his 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.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of probable 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 16 January 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
            Ms. Audrey Y. Davis, Member
            Mr. Patricia R. Collins., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  AFBCMR  Docket  Number
BC-1997-03689-2:

      Exhibit E.  Record of Proceedings, dated 12 Jun 98, w/atchs.
      Exhibit F.  DD 149, dated 19 Jan 07, w/atchs.
      Exhibit G.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 8 May 07.
      Exhibit H.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 15 May 07, w/atch.
      Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Jun 07.
      Exhibit J.  Letter, BCMR Med Consultant, dated 24 Oct 07.
      Exhibit K.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Oct 07




                                  CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                  Panel Chair