RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01008
					COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her narrative reason for separation (Erroneous Entry) be 
changed.

2.  Her Reentry (RE) code of 2C (Involuntarily separated with an 
honorable discharge; or entry level separation without 
characterization of service) be changed. 


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was discharged because she did not disclose that she had 
asthma.  However, she never had asthma nor has she ever been 
diagnosed with asthma.

She would like her reason for separation and her RE code changed 
so that she can reenlist in the military.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30 Aug 12, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for 
a period of six years.

On 9 Feb 12, the squadron commander notified the applicant of 
administrative discharge action for erroneous enlistment.  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.  If the relevant 
facts of this medical condition had been made known to the Air 
Force, she would have not been permitted to join.  The commander 
recommended an entry level separation.  The applicant acknowledged 
receipt of the discharge notification, waived her right to consult 
counsel and to submit statements in her own behalf.  The assistant 
staff judge advocate found the case file legally sufficient to 
support separation.  On 15 Feb 12, the discharge authority 
approved the entry level separation.

The applicant’s DD Form 214, Certification for Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with her 21 Feb 
12 entry level separation, reflects she received a reason for 
separation of “Erroneous Entry,” with an RE code of 2C.  She was 
credited with 5 months and 22 days of active duty service. 


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  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 discretion of the discharge authority.  The 
applicant has not provided any evidence that an error or injustice 
occurred in the processing of her discharge.  

DPSOR notes the medical authorities concluded that the applicant 
had a pre-existing medical condition that would have precluded her 
from enlisting in the Air Force had this condition been made known 
in advance.  Hence, both the commander and the discharge authority 
correctly concluded the discharge was in order.  The discharge was 
in accordance with the discharge instruction.  The applicant's 
service characterization is also correct as reflected on her 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 service on her DD Form 214 is correct and in 
accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions.

The complete DPOSR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

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

The complete DPOSA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AETC/SGPS recommends approval.  Based on the documentation on file 
in the applicant’s records; they found the separation was done in 
accordance with established policy and administrative procedures.  
However, if the applicant meets accession standards, they could 
support her requests.

SGPS states a review of the applicant’s records and medical notes 
from the Wilford Hall Medical Center (WHMC) indicated the 
applicant had some chest pain and trouble breathing during Basic 
Military Training (BMT).  She was evaluated by cardiology and 
pulmonary medicine and it was determined she had reactive airway 
disease which was disqualifying for military service and she would 
be processed for an entry level separation.  She did not wish to 
pursue a medical waiver.  She stated she understood the diagnoses 
and treatment plan and was subsequently processed for an entry 
level separation.

The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit E.

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The Medical 
Consultant indicates that he was not supplied the service medical 
documentation to challenge or refute the diagnostic conclusions 
reached by military medical officials and wishes to inform the 
applicant and the Board that asthma is disqualifying for service 
reentry, with some exceptions.  

DoD Instruction 6130.03, Medical Standards for Appointment, 
Enlistment, or Induction in the Military Services, outlines the 
policy under heading Lungs, Chest Wall, Pleura and Mediastinum 
which explains disqualifying conditions and the exception in the 
following:

“Airway hyper-responsiveness including asthma (493.xx), reactive 
airway disease, exercise-induced bronchospasm (519.11) or 
asthmatic bronchitis (493.90), reliably diagnosed and symptomatic 
after the 13th birthday” is disqualifying.

The Medical Consultant acknowledged the normal baseline pulmonary 
function study supplied by the applicant.  However, this does not 
eliminate the possible existence of airway hyperresponsiveness via 
Methacholine challenge testing and exercise tolerance testing; the 
latter test to expose possible exercise-induced reactive airway 
disease.  The resting pulmonary function studies are inadequate in 
ruling out the applicant's predisposition for an unexpected acute 
exacerbation of her medical condition; which would pose an 
unreasonable and serious health and mission risk should she 
experience a recurrence without ready access to proper 
intervention.  This is particularly relevant in the context of the 
operational environments and physical challenges confronting all 
members of today's military; and sparing no particular service 
component or career field.  The Medical Consultant lauds the 
applicant's desire to serve, but she has not met the burden of 
proof of error or injustice that warrants the desired change to 
the record.

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit F.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 12 Nov 14 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit G).  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 injustice.  After 
carefully reviewing the evidence in this case, we do not believe 
that relief is warrant.  We note SG’s states they could support 
the applicant’s request if she meets accession standards, however, 
we agree with the opinions and recommendation of DPSOR and the 
BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt the rationale expressed as the 
basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of 
an error of injustice.  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-2014-01008 in Executive Session on 20 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 8 Mar 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 15 Apr 14.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 21 May 14.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 16 Jun 14.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, 
	            dated 10 Oct 14.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Nov 14.