RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00559

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her discharge be expunged from her record and she be allowed to reenter the Air Force. 


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was unjustly discharged due to a misdiagnosis.  She became ill while in technical school, and they incorrectly diagnosed her is asthma.  After discharge, she went to a civilian doctor who ran the same tests and confirmed she did not have asthma.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 7 May 13.

On 20 Sep 13, the applicant was diagnosed with the pre-existing condition of asthma at the Trainee Health Clinic, Lackland AFB, TX.  

On 29 Oct 13, the applicant’s commander notified her he was recommending her for discharge with an entry level separation (ELS).  The reasons for taking this action were she had been diagnosed with asthma and had a history of childhood asthma.  The applicant’s commander recommended she be discharged with an Entry Level Separation (ELS).  The applicant acknowledged receipt, consulted with legal counsel, and submitted a statement on her own behalf.  The discharge was reviewed and determined to be legally sufficient.

On 12 Nov 13, the discharge authority directed the applicant be administratively discharged with an ELS, without probation or rehabilitation.

On 14 Nov 13, the applicant was furnished a ELS discharge with uncharacterized service, a reentry (RE) code of 2C (Erroneous Entry), and was credited with six months and eight days of active service. 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and G.    


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/SGPS recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  Prior to her separation, the applicant was administered a Methacholine Challenge Test (MCCT), which showed a 23 percent fall in FEV1, which was reversed with bronchodilator indicating positive test results.  After separation, she was reexamined by her private physician and had a “normal” pulmonary function test (PFT) on which she bases her request.  The “normal” PFT does not supersede the results of the MCCT done during her basic training.  The separation was done in accordance with established policy and administrative procedures.  She is disqualified for military service based on her history of asthma.  

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

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The applicant had a history of childhood asthma.  She experienced a recurrence of asthma-like symptoms during training when she developed shortness of breath on exertion, chest tightness, and air hunger.  The applicant was evaluated by the Allergy Clinic and was found to have asthma and exercise induced Bronchospam (sudden constriction of the muscle in the walls of the bronchioles.)  The medical authorities concluded the applicant had a pre-existing condition that would have precluded her form joining the Air Force had this condition been made known at the time of her enlistment.  Since this falls under AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, under the category of Erroneous Enlistment, the commander and the discharge authority followed the proper discharge procedures per the AFI.  Therefore, the uncharacterized character of service, narrative reason for separation, Separation Program Designator (SPD) code, and reentry (RE) code on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, are correct and in accordance with the Department of Defense and Air Force instructions.  

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



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

She reiterates that she does not have, nor ever did have asthma.  She would have argued more with the doctors when they told her she had asthma, but at the time their rank and status were intimidating and she didn’t want to argue with an officer.  She provides a synopsis of her significant activities before entering and since leaving the Air Force.  Her daily routine includes a two mile run six days a week, along with weight training.  She still wants to serve in the Air Force.  Finally, she submits the signed results of various medical tests proving she has healthy, normal functioning lungs (Exhibit F).   


ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  It should be noted that the applicant completed Basic Military Training and was attending technical training school at the time she was identified as having asthma.  On 20 Sep 13, the applicant’s examining provider entered the following comment in her medical record “Patient has a history of EPTE [existed prior to enlistment] asthma.  She reports a history of childhood asthma.”  In addition, the applicant signed page 1 of the Report of Medical Assessment in conjunction with her separation evaluation.  That document shows an “X” is placed in the block to indicate “Yes” and the word “asthma” is typed adjacent, in response to the question “Do you have any conditions which currently limit your ability to work in your primary military specialty or require geographic or assignment limitations?”  On 18 Oct 13, in response to the discharge recommendation, the applicant stated she “never had any health problems concerning asthma before so it comes as a shock to me that I was diagnosed with it.”  On 13 Dec 13, on month after discharge, a medical entry by a civilian provider for the purpose of “asthma recheck” indicated that the applicant was “not currently on any medications, but “only doing meds as needed.”  The provider concluded “Normal physical exam. Should be fine in the Air Force.”  On 14 Aug 14, the applicant received another series of pulmonary function studies conducted at a civilian medical center.  The study was signed off by the provider as “normal.”  

The medical consultant has no way of validating whether the applicant has or has not required treatment for exercise-induced bronchospasm or whether she has experienced an acute exacerbation that required acute “rescue” medical treatment since leaving military service.  Given the applicant’s previous clinical history, the Medical Consultant opines a repeat MCCT, like the one administered during military service, would more reliably determine if the applicant’s disposition for recurrent hyper-responsiveness remains.  The Medical Consultant lauds the applicant’s strong desire to serve and her efforts thus far, but there remains an uncertain predisposition for an acute recurrence, whether precipitated by a respiratory infection, sustained exerting with inhalation of cold air, or other extrinsic environmental triggers.  Absent a negative MCCT, the Medical Consultant finds this diagnostic uncertainty poses an unreasonable health risk for the applicant and for mission degradation.  

A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit G.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

As the BCMR Medical Consultant requested, she traveled back to Wilford Hall Medical Center, San Antonio, TX and took the MCCT.  She had no trouble with the tests and breezed through them easily.  The doctor who reviewed the results said that everything was normal and there is no sign of asthma.  She submitted the signed test results.  In fact, a doctor from Wilford Hall called her on 22 Aug 14 and told her he was looking through her files from the time she was in the Air Force and everything looked normal and the MCCT she initially received was given in the Allergy Clinic when it should have been done by the Pulmonary Clinic.  She also takes except to the BCMR Medical Consultant’s statement about having no way to validate whether she has required treatment since leaving the service.  She states that you do have her integrity and honesty and the fact she passed all these test without difficulty.  Finally, she points out that she spent a large amount of money out of her personal savings to take all these medical tests.  Every test taken since her separation has come back negative for asthma, and all of her lung functions are normal (Exhibit I).   


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 injustice.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include her rebuttal response to the advisory opinions, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  While the Board notes the additional testing and associated documentation the applicant completed at Lackland Air Force Base, we concur with the opinion of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant that because the applicant initially reported a history of childhood asthma there remains an uncertain predisposition for an acute recurrence regardless of the results of the follow-on tests.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.


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-2014-00559 in Executive Session on 22 Jan 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Feb 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AETC/SGPS, dated 3 Mar 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 17 Mar 14
        Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jul 14.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Aug 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit G.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 23 Sep
	Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Sep 14.
	Exhibit I.  Letter Applicant, dated 1 Oct 14, w/atchs.