RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00289
 			COUNSEL:  NONE
			HEARING DESIRED:  YES 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reentry (RE) code “2Q” which denotes “medically retired or 
discharged” be changed to allow reenlistment in the Armed 
Forces.  

He receives $500,000 and a retirement check for his wrongful 
diagnosis of asthma and discharge.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has supporting documentation from two doctors stating he was 
misdiagnosed and could continue service which is his goal.

He was tested for allergies throughout his military career and 
prescribed medications for his allergies.  After arriving at 
Minot AFB, ND he experienced difficulties breathing and was 
diagnosed with asthma.  

After his Permanent Change of Station (PCS) assignment to 
Mountain Home AFB, ID he learned he was recommended for a 
Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).  He was having difficulties 
breathing and requested to be screened for allergies.  His 
request was denied since he was recommended for a MEB. 

He was referred to a pulmonary specialist who did not think he 
had asthma and recommended that he be reevaluated and returned 
to duty.  His commander and first sergeant also recommended that 
he be returned to duty.  

Two weeks before his discharge for asthma he passed a Fitness 
Assessment (FA) with a score of 84.  

His Primary Care Manager (PCM) at Peterson AFB, CO explained 
that he has several allergies especially to weeds and sagebrush 
but that he never had asthma.  He has allergy induced asthma 
which is treatable. 

He received $45,000 for his Discharge With Severance Pay (DWSP) 
that he would pay back from the settlement.  This is a fair 
calculation of the pay he would have received for the past 
12 years if he had received proper medical testing.    

The applicant believes the Board should find it in the interest 
of justice to consider his untimely application as he was a 
model airman and wanted nothing more than to retire doing what 
he loved.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30 Jan 01, the applicant entered active duty.

According to an undated Narrative Summary (NARSUM), the 
applicant was referred for a Medical Evaluation Board with the 
chief complaint of asthma.  The NARSUM states that he had 
several months of intermittent signs or symptoms with asthma.  
He had an office spirometry which showed a possible diagnosis of 
asthma and was started on Advair and Albuterol at that time.  He 
subsequently followed up with pulmonology for pulmonary function 
tests, which were positive.  He also had a positive methacholine 
challenge test for asthma.  It was recommended he continue to 
use Advair and Albuterol on an as needed basis and be followed 
in the Family Medicine Clinic for his asthma.

According to the Format for Commander Input to Medical 
Evaluation Board (MEB)/Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) dated 
3  Sep 08, his commander indicated he disagreed with the PCM’s 
assessment and recommended the applicant be re-evaluated and 
retained for further duty in his Primary Air Force Specialty 
Code (PAFSC).    

According to an AF Form 618, Medical Board Report, dated 15 Sep 
08, he was referred for evaluation by the Informal Physical 
Evaluation Board (IPEB) for diagnosis and findings of asthma.  

According to an AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended 
Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, dated 30 Oct 08, 
he was recommended for DWSP with a compensable percentage rating 
of 10 percent for mild intermittent asthma.
 
In a memorandum dated 8 Dec 08, the applicant requested that he 
be permitted to waive his earlier election for a Formal Physical 
Evaluation Board (FPEB) hearing and concur with the IPEB’s 
recommendations and findings with the understanding that he 
would have no further right to demand a formal hearing without 
substantial new evidence.

According to AFPC/DPSD’s memorandum dated 30 Dec 08, the 
Secretary of the Air Force directed the applicant be separated 
from active service for physical disability under the provisions 
of 10 U.S.C. § 1203 with severance pay.  

On 10 Apr 09, he was honorably discharged with RE code “2Q” and 
a narrative reason for separation of “Disability, Severance 
Pay.”

The applicant served 8 years, 2 months and 9 days on active 
duty.  


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPFD recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change 
his RE code.  The preponderance of evidence reflects that no 
error or injustice occurred during the disability process.  The 
IPEB reviewed the applicant’s medical board on 30 Oct 08 for a 
diagnosis of mild intermittent asthma and recommended DWSP with 
a disability rating of 10 percent.  On 3 Nov 08, the applicant 
requested a hearing by the FPEB with counsel.  On 8 Dec 08, he 
waived his hearing with the FPEB and accepted the recommendation 
of the IPEB.  It should be noted that medical boards are a 
snapshot in time and he waived two of his appeal rights to have 
his medical board reviewed for possible return to duty.  He 
elected not to exercise his rights to appeal the IPEB’s 
recommendation.  RE code “2Q” is the correct RE code for a 
member who is medically separated.   

The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 15 Sep 14, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit 
D).  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 to warrant 
changing his RE code.  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 Air Force 
office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the 
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to 
sustain his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an 
error or injustice.  Regarding his requests to be paid 
$500,000 and he receive a retirement check, the applicant has 
not provided sufficient evidence of an error or injustice to 
warrant correcting his record in the manner requested.  
Therefore, in view of the above and in the absence of evidence 
he was denied rights to which he was entitled, we find no basis 
to recommend granting any of 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 material 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-2014-00289 in Executive Session on 9 Dec 14 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Jan 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPFD, dated 14 Feb 14.
        Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Sep 14.