RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01960
INDEX CODE: 112.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reentry (RE) code of 2Q (Personnel medically retired or
discharged) be changed to an eligible RE code.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was discharged for asthma, but he does not have asthma. He
has reactive airway disease which is induced by dogs. Once he
removed the dog he has had no asthma symptoms.
In support of his request, the applicant provides a Department of
Veterans Affairs (DVA) clinic note.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 17 Aug 04, the applicant contracted his enlistment in the
Regular Air Force. He was promoted to the grade of senior airman
with date of rank of 17 Aug 07. He served an an Aircraft
Armament Systems Journeyman.
While on active duty the applicant experienced and was treated
for recurring episodes of asthma. On 3 Nov 08, he underwent a
Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) for mild persistent asthma. The
MEB referred his case to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board
(IPEB). On 26 Feb 09, the IPEB found the applicant unfit and
recommended discharge under the provisions other than Chapter 61,
Title 10, U.S.C. The IPEB noted that he had a greater than 10-
year history of recurrent dyspnea, wheezing and cough which
indicated his condition should be classified as existing prior to
service (EPTS).
He was honorably discharged on 27 May 09. He was credited with
4 years, 9 months and 11 days of active service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. DPSD states the evidence reveals no
error or injustice occurred during the disability process or at
the time of separation. DPSD noted it appears the applicants
medical condition EPTS due to his more than a 10-year history of
recurrent of dyspnea, wheezing, and cough.
The complete AFPC/DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the applicants
disability separation was appropriately processed. The applicant
received the required RE code for an individual separated with a
disability discharge.
The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies the Air Force evaluation were forwarded to the applicant
on 20 Aug 10, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this
date, no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical
Consultant notes it may well have been demonstrated the applicant
had a reactive airway disease that manifested as bronchospasms
upon exposure to animal dander. His clinical history does not
show his recurrent emergency treatments for acute exacerbations
were solely the result of exposure to animals as some were from
physical exertion. Regardless of the trigger for his reactive
airway disease, the fact is he has experienced difficult attacks
requiring recurring intervention with oral and parenteral,
steroids. The applicants recurrent treatment of his condition
with steroids is an indicator of the serious and potential deadly
nature of his illness. The Medical Consultant further notes the
prognosis of a durable/stable recovery or remission of his
underlying disorder is uncertain. The Medical Consultant also
notes the applicants respiratory disorder has presented under
circumstances which post an unreasonable health risk to him, if
unable to gain immediate access to proper emergency intervention
following an unexpected acute exacerbation of his condition.
Although, the applicant contends he has had no symptoms since
removing the dog from his environment, this does not guarantee he
is free of the disease or the risks for recurrent exacerbations.
The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultants evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 15 Oct 10, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this
date, no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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 an injustice. We took
notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and
recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility
and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of the
existence of an error or injustice. After a thorough of the
evidence of record, we believe the RE code he received is
appropriate based on his medical separation and is in accordance
with the governing instruction. Although the applicant contends
that he is asthma free, we note that based on the history of his
medical condition existing prior to service, there is a high
probability of a reoccurrence of symptoms if exposed to the
operational and extreme physical stressors of the military
environment. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we find no 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 AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2010-01960 in Executive Session on 23 Nov 10, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2010-01960 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 May 10, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 16 Jun 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 30 Jul 10.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Aug 10.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 13 Oct 10.
Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Oct 10, w/atch.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03941
In a letter dated 17 Jan 08, the applicant was notified of a change to her RE code from 3A to 2Q (Personnel medically retired or discharged) and issued a DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from 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 offices of the Air Force and the BCMR Medical Consultant at Exhibits C, D and F,...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03356
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03356 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2Q (Personnel medically retired or discharged) be changed to allow reentry in the military. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-02501
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE AND BCMR MEDICAL CONSULTANT EVALUATIONS: HQ AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. Exhibit D. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 28 Jan 10. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Jan 10.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01556
Based on symptoms consistent with reactive airways disease and asthma and the positive bronchoprovocation test confirming abnormal bronchial reactivity, he underwent entry-level separation. The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states he was sick with a bad case of bronchitis when he was tested for asthma. Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 Sep 03.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01008
The specific reason for the proposed action was based on a Standard Form 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 18 Jan 12, which indicated the applicant should not have been able to join the Air Force because of reactive airway disease. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the type of separation, narrative reason for separation, separation code and the character of service was appropriately administered and was within the...
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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-01757
The IPEB reviewed his case and found the member fit and recommended, "Return to Duty." BCMR Medical Consultant's complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated he sought a second opinion by pulmonologist in December 2005 and was diagnosed with asthma after having below normal pulmonary function tests. In this respect, the Board notes...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2006-01757
The IPEB reviewed his case and found the member fit and recommended, "Return to Duty." BCMR Medical Consultant's complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated he sought a second opinion by pulmonologist in December 2005 and was diagnosed with asthma after having below normal pulmonary function tests. In this respect, the Board notes...
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...
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...