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

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02027
      XXXXXXX    INDEX CODE: 108.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests  his  record
be changed to show no break in service.

2.  He be reimbursed back pay and entitlements.

3.  He receive supplemental consideration for missed promotion cycles.

4.  His medical and personnel records that reflect or mention  asthma  or  a
medical discharge for asthma be expunged from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  27
June 1990.  He was evaluated  through  the  Military  Disability  Evaluation
System (DES) in 2001 and was  found  unfit  with  a  10  percent  disability
rating.  Following the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  Personnel  Council’s
(SAFPC) review of his rebuttal  comments  and  the  evidence  and  testimony
presented to the PEBs, they concurred with the recommendation  of  the  PEBs
and directed discharge with severance pay,  with  a  10  percent  disability
rating.  He was discharged on 14 August 2001, due to the  findings  of  mild
intermittent to persistent asthma, after serving 11 years, 1  month  and  17
days on active duty.

A similar request was considered and denied by the Board on 8 June 2004.   A
summary of the evidence considered by the Board and the  rationale  for  its
decision is set forth in the Record of Proceedings, which is at Exhibit K.

A similar appeal was considered and partially granted by  the  Board  on  10
August  2005.   The  Board   determined   based   on   conflicting   medical
information, it was questionable as to whether the applicant may  have  been
misdiagnosed and decided the most equitable solution would be to  approve  a
waiverable reenlistment eligibility (RE) code.  A summary  of  the  evidence
considered by the Board and the rationale for its decision is set  forth  in
the Addendum to the Record of Proceedings, which is attached at Exhibit P.

In his most recent request, applicant contends that he does not have  asthma
and was wrongfully diagnosed and medically discharged.  He submits as  proof
the fact that he has been returned to active duty and has done well  despite
the stresses of military service.  After he received  the  Board’s  decision
to correct his RE Code, he went from a traditional Reservist  to  an  Active
Guard Reservist (AGR) serving on a 4-year extended active duty tour  in  the
Air Force Reserve.  He pursued and applied to enter active  duty  Air  Force
under the prior service program into  his  old  career  field  of  Aerospace
Physiology.  He was sworn  in  on  5  April  2006.   In  December  2006,  he
received his medical recommendation for flying.  He has been back on  active
duty without limitations and  has  excelled  at  his  duties  as  a  Chamber
Technician.  His job requires he perform inside observer  duties  at  35,000
feet, unpressurized, at least three or more times a month.   He  is  not  an
increased risk and does not have any assignment  limitations.   Since  being
returned to duty, he has accumulated over 27 flying hours in  the  hypobaric
chamber without incident.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit Q.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant  is  of  the  opinion  that  no  change  in  the
applicant’s record is warranted.  The Medical Consultant states he  presents
the fact that he received a waiver to join the AGR as evidence that he  does
not have asthma.  This indicates that he received a waiver and was  felt  to
be able to withstand the rigors of military service in a position  where  he
was assigned.  Returning him to full active duty without restrictions  would
imply that he would be able  to  perform  duty  in  all  situations  in  all
locations worldwide.  His condition would be  subject  to  exacerbations  in
some locations, when exposed to known triggers not  easily  avoidable  under
austere conditions which would require  significant  medical  care  and  put
himself and the mission in jeopardy.  In his letter to  the  Board  dated  5
May 2005, he admits to recurrent symptoms resembling asthma.   Even  if  one
accepts the premise that he does not have asthma, he still has  a  condition
causing respiratory distress that poses an  unacceptable  risk  if  he  were
returned to world-wide service, based on the descriptions of  his  symptoms,
the commonality of the triggers and the medication  required  to  treat  his
condition.   The  information  submitted  for   reconsideration   does   not
significantly change the previous  opinion  of  the  medical  advisories  of
23 October 2003 and 25 March 2004.  Action and disposition in this case  are
proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air  Force  directives  that
implement the law.



The complete Medical Consultant's evaluation is at Exhibit R.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant believes he proves that he was returned to active duty  on  an
AGR tour, he also included proof that  he  reenlisted  and  joined  the  Air
Force (without a waiver) under a prior service program on 5 April 2006.   He
is still in the Air Force on full active duty.  The  facts  do  not  mention
the results of the Board’s decision to grant some relief by  correcting  his
records to RE code “3K” (Secretarial Authority).  The  Board  concluded  due
to the conflicting medical information, it is questionable as to whether  he
may have been misdiagnosed.  This conclusion  proves  there  was  reasonable
doubt he should have never been  discharged.   His  career  field  will  not
allow individuals with asthma or any  sort  of  bronchoconstriction  issues.
He never admitted to having asthma.  The advisory opinion is based  on  past
appeals and misdiagnoses presented as evidenced by the original Board.   The
simple fact that he is in the Air Force, performing  his  duties  above  and
beyond, and is being utilized as  a  total  force  asset,  should  be  proof
enough.  The facts presented and the additional documents  provided  clearly
prove that he should have never been  medically  discharged.   Bottom  line,
his records should reflect that there was no break in service.

His complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit T.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  After again reconsidering the  applicant's  appeal  and  the  additional
documentation provided, it  remains  our  opinion  that  correction  of  the
applicant's records to reflect that he was continued on active duty  is  not
warranted.  In our previous consideration of this case we found no error  or
injustice within the efforts taken to discharge him from the Air Force,  but
felt sufficient evidence was presented to warrant a change of  his  RE  code
to allow him to apply for a waiver to reenter military service.  It  appears
he has successfully been able to reenter military service and has been  able
to perform his duties.  However, are not persuaded that  the  fact  that  he
has been able to return to  active  duty  and  perform  his  duties  without
incident is sufficient to warrant a  determination  that  his  discharge  in
2001 was inappropriate.  The  fact  remains  that  the  applicant  presented
himself to medical authorities with a respiratory  condition  and  exhibited
significant bronchial hyperactivity after routine tests were performed.   In
our opinion, the applicant was appropriately processed through the  military
disability evaluation system at the time and we are  not  persuaded  by  his
assertions that the decision to discharge him for medical reasons  was  made
in error, or that the  appropriate  standards  were  not  properly  applied.
Therefore absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find  no  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

2.  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 issues involved.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of  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  reconsidered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 11 August 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
              Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

  Exhibit K.  Record of Proceedings, dated 30 June 2004,
              w/Exhibits.
  Exhibit P.  Addendum to Record  of  Proceedings,  dated  13  October

              2005, w/Exhibits.
  Exhibit Q.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 1 May 2007, w/atchs.
  Exhibit R.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 10 October 2007.
  Exhibit S.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 October 2007.
  Exhibit T.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 7 December 2007 w/atchs.




                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair