RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-05694
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His reentry (RE) code of “2C” (Involuntarily separated with 
an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without 
characterization of service) be changed to a code that would 
allow him to reenlist.

2.  His separation program designator (SPD) code of “JFC” 
(Erroneous Entry – Other) be changed.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He does not have nor has he ever had asthma.  He has never used 
an inhaler or medication to assist his breathing.  He 
participates in strenuous physical activity with no limiting 
breathing issues.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 5 October 
2004.

The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to 
recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the 
provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208.  The specific reason 
was a Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 17 December 
2004, which states the applicant was diagnosed with Asthma.  
This condition existed prior to service and has not been 
permanently aggravated by the service.  Had the Air Force known 
this condition would prevent him from performing military 
duties, he would not have been allowed entry into the military.




He was advised of his rights in this matter and waived his right 
to consult with counsel and to submit a statement on his own 
behalf.  In a legal review of the case file, the deputy chief, 
adverse actions found the case legally sufficient and 
recommended separation.  The discharge authority concurred with 
the recommendation and directed the applicant be discharged.  
The applicant was discharged on 31 January 2005 with an entry 
level separation.  He served 3 months and 27 days on active 
duty.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/SGPS recommends denial.  SGPS states while in basic 
training he was administered a Methacholine Challenge Test which 
showed a 21.7 percent change which is positive and indicates 
asthma.  He stated he did not know he had asthma and never told 
the MEPS CMO or was treated prior to entering the military.  He 
stated he understood the diagnoses and treatment plan.  
Subsequently, he was processed for an entry level separation.  
After separation he obtained a new evaluation which showed no 
indication of asthma.  After the first positive test, this new 
test is suspect.  Our pulmonary consultant advised that if one 
gets adult onset of asthma, it never will resolve.  It may be in 
active, but they still have the diagnoses which is not conducive 
to military service.

Based on the documentation on file in the applicant’s records, 
they find the separation was done in accordance with established 
policy and administrative procedures.  

A complete copy of the AETC/SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  DPSOR states the medical 
authorities concluded that the applicant had a pre-existing 
condition that would have precluded him from joining the Air 
Force had this condition been made known at the time of his 
enlistment.  Since this falls under the criteria in AFI 36-
3208 under the category of Erroneous Enlistment, both the 
commander and the discharge authority initiated discharge 
procedures as per the instruction.  The applicant's service 
characterization is correct as reflected on his DD Form 214.  
Airmen are given entry-level separation/Uncharacterized service 
characterization when separation is initiated in the first 
180 days continuous active service.  The Department of Defense 
(DoD) determined if a member served less than 180 days 
continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and 
the service to characterize their limited service.  Therefore, 
the Uncharacterized character of service and narrative reason 
for separation which resulted from the erroneous enlistment on 
his DD Form 214 are correct and in accordance with DoD and Air 
Force instructions.  

Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel 
records, the discharge to include the type of separation, SPD 
code, narrative reason for separation and character of service 
were appropriately administered and within the discretion of the 
discharge authority.  The applicant did not provide any evidence 
that an error or injustice occurred in the processing of his 
discharge.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial.  DPSOA states the RE code 2C is 
required based on the applicant’s involuntary discharge with an 
uncharacterized character of service and the applicant does not 
provide any evidence of an error or injustice in reference to 
his RE code.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit E.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 5 September 2014 for review and comment within 
30 days (Exhibit F).  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 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 an error or injustice.  After a 
thorough review of the evidence of record, it is our opinion 
that given the circumstances surrounding his separation from the 
Air Force, the RE code and SPD code assigned was proper and in 
compliance with the appropriate instructions.  In addition, the 
applicant has not provided any evidence which would lead us to 
believe that a change to his codes is warranted.  Therefore, we 
agree with the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and 
adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In 
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.


4.  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.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2013-05694 in Executive Session on 7 October 2014, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


Although XXXXX chaired the panel, in view of her 
unavailability, XXXXXXX has agreed to sign as Acting Panel 
Chair.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 December 2013, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Available Master Personnel Records
  Exhibit C.  Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 16 January 2014.
  Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 17 January 2014.
  Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 18 February 2014.
  Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 September 2014.