RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-01361
            INDEX CODE:  110.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2Q  (Personnel  medically  retired
or discharged) be changed to a category “1” code which would  allow  him  to
enlist in military service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His current RE code does not reflect the truth of  his  discharge.   He  was
not forced out of the Air Force.  He was given the option to stay but  chose
to be discharged so that he could finish his education.  He  was  still  fit
for duty and subject to be  recalled  subsequent  to  his  separation.   His
current RE code prohibits his reentering military service.

He completed law school, repaid his severance pay and  attempted  to  enlist
in the Guard; however, he was told that his code  had  to  be  changed.   He
cannot understand why  he  was  given  this  RE  code  when  he  voluntarily
separated from service and could still be serving on active duty today.

He currently works for the State of Texas  Adjutant  General  Department  as
team leader for the Seaborne Challenge Corps.  The program is  regulated  by
the Army National Guard and he must adhere to Army  rules  and  regulations,
including but not limited to, Army physical  fitness  standards.   Moreover,
he is sitting for the Texas State Bar in July and would very  much  like  to
continue serving his country as a JAG officer.  In 1999,  he  was  given  an
option by the Air Force which implied he was still fit for duty  and  he  is
100 percent fit for duty now.

In support of the application,  the  applicant  submits  his  DD  Form  214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge  from  Active  Duty,  his  AF  Form  77,
Supplemental Evaluation Sheet, and his Cumulative Grade Transcript.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 22 Oct 99, the applicant was honorably discharged from  the  Regular  Air
Force in the grade of airman first class. He was separated  for  reasons  of
disability, severance pay and received an RE code of 2Q.  He had served  two
years and nine months on active duty.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted  from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters  prepared  by
the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C and F.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial.  DPSOA states a review of  the  applicant’s
records noted on 8 Sep 99, the Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  directed  the
member’s separation from active duty service for  physical  disability  with
severance pay.

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 14 Dec 08, the applicant reiterated much of his earlier  contentions  and
adds his Medical Evaluation Board (MEB)  recommended  his  “return  to  duty
(may need to cross train…).”  His MEB also states “PFTs measured as part  of
a Class III Physical  exam  [for  cross-training  into  the  combat  control
career field]…were within normal limits.”

Throughout his entire career in  the  Air  Force,  he  was  dedicated  to  a
rigorous physical fitness regiment and constantly monitored his health.   He
respectfully requests he be allowed to  return  to  the  United  States  Air
Force in some capacity as he can be a  valuable  asset.   His  post  service
activity since his discharge from the Air Force reflects his assertion.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

BCMR MEDICAL CONSULTANT EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
states  the  applicant  was  separated  from  military  service  due  to   a
disqualifying medical condition.  The clinical  manifestations  demonstrated
by his respiratory  system,  following  exercise  and  in  response  to  the
Histamine challenge Test, imposed a significant health,  life,  and  mission
risk; particularly while under  operational  conditions  and  without  ready
access to emergency medical intervention.  The Medical Consultant finds  the
risk particularly  relevant  in  the  context  of  the  austere  operational
environments and physical stressors confronting all military members today.

The complete Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF BCMR MEDICAL CONSULTANT EVALUATION:

A copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on  15  Jan  09  for
review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no  response  has  been
received by this office (Exhibit G).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing  law  or
regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest  of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of  error  or  injustice.   After  careful  consideration  of  the
available evidence, we found no indication that the actions taken to  effect
his discharge were improper or contrary to the provisions of  the  governing
regulations in effect at the time, or that the  actions  taken  against  the
applicant were based on factors other than his own  misconduct.   Therefore,
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.  Thus, 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 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 19 February 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Ms. Michele M. Rachie, Member
      Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member

The following  documentary  evidence  was  considered  under  AFBCMR  Docket
Number BC-2008-01361:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Apr 08, w/atch.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C   Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOA, dated 22 Oct 08.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 Dec 08.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Dec 08, w/atchs
      Exhibit F.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 6 Jan 09.
      Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Jan 09.




                                  CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                  Panel Chair