RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00797 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her reentry code of 2Q (personnel medically retired or 
discharged) be changed to 3A (first-term airman who separates 
before completing 36 months or 60 months for six-year enlistees 
on current enlistment and who has no known qualifying factors or 
ineligibility conditions except grade, skill level, and 
insufficient total active federal military service). 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She believes her Methacholine Challenge Test was interpreted 
incorrectly when she was on active duty. She is unable to serve 
in any branch of the Armed Services without the error being 
corrected. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides extracts of 
medical records, a memorandum from her physician, and a copy of 
her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 23 Nov 99. 

 

Her Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) report, dated 11 Apr 03, 
reflects she was not worldwide qualified and was recommended to 
the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). She concurred with the 
findings and recommendations of the MEB on 22 Apr 03. 

 

On 28 Apr 03, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) 
found the applicant unfit for duty and recommended she be 
discharged. Additionally, the IPEB noted the applicant’s 
history of breathing problems and inhaler use as a child. On 
30 Apr 03, she concurred with the findings and indicated she 
understood she was waiving the right to a Formal Physical 
Evaluation Board (FPEB). 

 


On 30 Apr 03, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council 
(SAFPC) determined the applicant was physically unfit for 
continued military service due to a physical disability which 
existed prior to military service and directed that she be 
discharged without disability benefits. 

 

The applicant was discharged on 16 Jun 03 with an honorable 
discharge and a narrative reason for separation of “disability 
existed prior to service.” 

 

A 17 Jun 03, Department of Veterans Affairs rating decision 
reflects the applicant was awarded a 30 percent rating for 
service-connected asthma. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

BCMR MEDICAL CONSULTANT’S EVALUATION: 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial and states the 
applicant has not met her burden of proof that an error or 
injustice occurred. 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant states by today’s standards there 
must be “clear and unmistakable evidence” that the medical 
condition predated military service in order to be designated as 
existed prior to service (EPTS). The applicant’s appeal is not 
whether her condition existed prior to service, but whether it 
ever existed at all. In the clinical history taken in 
conjunction with her MEB, the applicant reported experiencing 
shortness of breath as a child, which was relieved by “taking 
inhalers one time,” although not formally diagnosed with asthma. 

 

The Board should also be aware that, despite the applicant’s 
implicit denial of having asthma, she accepted a 30 percent 
disability rating from the DVA, effective 17 Jun 03. The 
rationale for the rating decision in 2003 is extracted as, “She 
developed breathing problems after having worked one and a half 
years in a building with asbestos. She also worked in an 
environment that was dusty and worked with some chemicals like 
spray paint and paint thinners. She never was diagnosed to have 
asthma prior to 2003. She gets short of breath with physical 
activity. She has no history of heart disease. She takes her 
albuterol inhaler regularly every day. She states there is no 
wheezing and she only develops shortness of breath.” 

 

Since the applicant’s shortness of breath has consistently been 
associated with physical exertion, she could well have what is 
referred to as intrinsic asthma; that is, one in which the 
trigger or onset of symptoms is not related to an external 
exposure to an allergen or other sensitizing agent. While the 
applicant has provided test results which reflect, in the 
resting state, she now has normal pulmonary function; this does 
not eliminate her vulnerability for developing a recurrence of 
her symptoms under physical exertion. The Medical Consultant 


finds this vulnerability to be of particular concern under the 
austere operational environments and physical stressors 
confronting all members of today’s Air and Space Expeditionary 
Force; sparing no Service component or career field. 

 

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit 
C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 11 Sep 09 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not received a 
response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. 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 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 Docket Number BC-
2009-00797 in Executive Session on 15 October 2009, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Mar 09, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 4 Sep 09. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Sep 09. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair