. 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 96-01 597 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

JUL  1 3  1998 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 

Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction 

of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A 
Stat 116), it is directed that: 

ilitary records of the Department of the Air Force relating t- 
be corrected to show that he was not reduced to the grade of Airman First 
Class on 13 October 1995, but on that date, he continued to serve in the grade of Senior Airman 
with an effective date and date of rank of 15 February 199 1 and is entitled to all pay and 
allowances from 13 October 1995 until the date of his discharge on 19 August 1996. 

c -  

I/  Director 

U 

Air Force Review Boards Agency 

. 

RECORD 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR 

OF PROCEEDINGS 
CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  96-01597 J"f. 

3  1998 

COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

s 

c 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

His rank of senior .airman (E-4), be reinstated. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
On  13 October  1995,  he  received an administrative reduction in 
rank  for  his  fourth  failure  in  the  Weight  Management  Program 
(WMP).  As  indicated in the attached documents, those failures 
were due to problems beyond his control. 
In  support  of  his  request,  applicant  submits  a  letter, dated 
19 March 1996, Subject:  Proposed Administrative Discharge Action 
Against  (Applicant) , from his Area Defense Counsel; Letters from 
Medical Corps Captains; and, administrative demotion actions. 
Applicant's submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
The 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 Office of 
Primary Responsibility  (OPR) .  Accordingly, there is no need to- 
recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings. 
Applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19 February 1991 
for  a  period  of  six  (6) years  in  the  grade  of  Senior Airman 
( E - 4 ) .  
Applicant  was  honorably discharged on  19  August  1996 under  the 
provisions  of  AFI  36-3212  (Physically  Unfit  for  Continued 
Military Service) with 10% Severance Pay.  He served 8 years, 6 
months  and  4  days  of  active  military  service.  His  discharge 
order, AB-1066, dated  15  July  1996, reflected discharge  in the 
grade of airman first class. 

Per  Special  Order  AB-1200,  dated  20  August  1996,  applicant's 
discharge order was amended to reflect discharge in the grade of 
Senior  Airman. 
The  DD  Form  214, Certificate  of  Release  or 
Discharge From Active Duty reflects the grade of  Senior Airman, 
with an effective date of pay grade of 13 October 1995. 

t 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The  NCOIC,  Commanders  Programs  Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPSFC2 ,  states 
that applicant contends his inability to meet body fat standards 
was a result of a medical condition which was beyond his control. 
Maintaining  Air  Force  weight  standards  is  an  individual 
responsibility. 
The  Weight  Management  Program  (WMP)  is  a 
rehabilitative  program  designed  to  encourage  safe,  effective 
weight  loss/body  fat  reduction, and  closely  replicates  proven 
civilian weight loss programs.  Individuals who allow themselves 
to exceed the Maximum Allowable Weight  (MAW) standard are subject 
to administrative actions that may reflect during and after their 
career.  Unit commanders may approve temporary medical deferrals 
for participants  in  Phase  I of  the  WMP  when  recommended by  a 
medical  practitioner. 
Commanders  are  required  to  notify 
individuals who  get  deferrals  that  they  remain  ineligible  for 
many career related events, since the temporary medical deferral 
is considered Phase I of the WMP. 
Applicant  was placed  into the WMP  effective  24 August  1993  and 
received  four  unsatisfactory  progress  evaluations.  Regulation 
provides the option of  "administrative demotion"  after the third 
failure in the program and  "administrative separation"  after the 
fourth failure.  The applicant's commander elected to give him a 
letter of reprimand after the third failure and after the fourth, 
administered the demotion to airman first class.  The commander 
stated  that  he  was  aware  of  applicant's  medical  condition, 
however, he felt applicant could perform other aerobic activities 
under the  supervision of  the gym  personnel  and  re-enrolled the 
applicant  in  the  FIT  class  to  assist  him  with  weight/body  fat 
reduction.  They recommend applicant's request be denied. 
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 
The  Medical  Consultant  to  the  AFBCMR  states  that  there  i s  
testimony  offered  that  the  applicgnt  suffered  a  Line  of  Duty 
(LOD) 
injury  to  his  right  ankle  and/or  foot  on  17 March 
1993.  On 8 April  1993 applicant had  a  physical examination and 
was  noted  to  be  five pounds  over  h i s   Maximum  Allowable  Weight 
(MAW) according to the fitness standards set down in AFR 35-11. 

r -  

As  noted  in  the  letter  from 
a medical  provider, 
weight control is achieved through a balance of calories consumed 
and calories burned.  It requires an excess of about 3600 Kcal to 
be able to store one pound of fat or conversely it requires about 
3600 Kcal  of energy burned to consume a pound  of szored fat.  T h e  

2 

. 

one recourse that the applicant may have had, namely to apply for 
a permanent change of maximum Body Fat Measurement  (BFM) ,  which 
might have been pursued during the window of opportunity when the 
applicant  was  below  maximum  weight  but  above  maximum  BFM,  if 
initiated  there  is  no  supportive  documentation presented-  -that 
this  process  had  been  considered  prior  to  processing  the 
administrative discharge.  Administrative action appears to haye 
been appropriate.  They recommend the application be denied. 
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. 

The Assistant  Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Airman  Promotion 
Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPWB,  states  that  while  the  applicant  was 
demoted under the provisions of AFI 36-2503, he is not protesting 
the procedural correctness of the demotion action but rather the 
basis  for it.  HQ AFPC/DPPPWB defers to the previous Air  Force 
recommendations  of  denial  of  applicant's  request. 
However , 
should the Board void the grade reduction, the applicant will be 
entitled to have is former grade of 'senior airman reinstated with 
an effective date and date of rank of 15 February 1991. 
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. 

A  letter  from  the  Chief,  General  and  Administrative  Law,  HQ 
AFPC/JA, to SAF/MIBR states that they have learned that applicant 
was discharged with a medical  disability discharge on 19 August 
1996.  Given  this  new  information,  they  believe  the  medical 
evidence relative to applicant's separation could be relevant in 
assessing the challenged demotion.  They recommend a new medical 
evaluation. 

HQ AFPC/JA letter is attached at Exhibit F. 

Chief , 

Medical 

states 

Consultant,  AFBCMR , 

that 
The 
notwithstanding the reason for applicant's separation, the  fact 
remains, as outlined by the previous AFBCMR Medical Consultant's 
evaluation, that  applicant had  within his  ability the means  to 
reach and maintain fitness standards and nonetheless failed to do 
so.  Review  of  records shows that  no  time was  lost  from work 
because of his alleged injury and no LOD determination was made 
(as required for any injury that leads to loss of duty time of 24 
hours  or  more  or  which  results  in  a  possible  permanent 
disability).  It is the opinion of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant 
that no change in the records is warranted  and  the application 
should be denied. 
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit G. 
A Memorandum  for Review Boards Office, from Defense Finance and 
Accounting  Service  (DFAS), dated  28  July  1997,  states  that 
applicant's military pay account regarding a demotion from senior 
airman  ( E - 4 )   to airman first class  ( E - 3 1 ,   shows he was paid as an 
E - 3   effective  1 3   October  1995  through  his  date  of  separation, 

3 

19 August 1996.  He has not received any back pay as a result of 
a  determination that  his  demotion was  inappropriate.  (Exhibit 
€3.) 
The Senior Attorney-Advisor, HQ AFPC/JA, states that six (6)-- -days 
before  applicant  was  discharged,  the  applicant's  commander 
invalidated the previous demotion and reinstated the applicant co 
the rank of senior airman.  However, it does not appear that t]ne 
applicant  received  the  entitled  back  pay  resulting  from  the 
invalidation of his demotion. 

Throughout  applicant's participation  in -the  Weight  Management 
Program  (WMP),  he was on a series of medical profiles due to his 
foot  injury,  which  limited  his  ability  to  perform  aerobic  or 
impact  type  activities.  Although  the  commander  was  aware  of 
applicant's  physical  limitations,  the  applicant  received  two 
Letters  of  Reprimand  for  unsatisfactory  performance  and  was 
ultimately  demoted  to  the  grade  of  airman  first  class  on 
13 October 1995 for failure to keep fit. 
On  1 July 1996,  based  on the  findings of  the  Informal Physical 
Evaluation  Board  (IPEB) ,  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force 
determined the applicant physically unfit for continued military 
service and  directed he  be  discharged with  severance pay  under 
the  provisions  of  10 USC  1203.  In  response,  the  applicant's 
commander  invalidated  the  13  October  1995  demotion  action -and 
reinstated the applicant to the grade of senior airman, effective 
13 August  1996. 
The  commander  cited  AFI  36-2503,  paragraph 
17.4.1, as  the  basis  for  the  reinstatement  of  the  applicant's 
rank. 

The invalidation of applicant's demotion and reinstatement to the 
grade of senior airman on 13 August 1996 entitled him to back pay 
for those 10 months for which he received airman first class pay. 
The  correct  date  of  rank  should  be  the  original  date  he  was 
promoted  to  senior  airman. 
They  recommend  the  applicant's 
request be granted with appropriate back pay and allowances. 
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit I. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the 
applicant  on  18 August  1997 for review and  response within  30 
days.  As  of  this  date, no  response  has been  received by  this 
off ice. 

4 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

_.. 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 
2.  The application was timely filed. 
3.  Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  60 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injusti'ce 
warranting  a  correction  of  applicant's  record  to  reflect 
reinstatement of his rank to senior airman.  After reviewing the 
evidence  of  record,  it  appears  that  the  original  reason  for 
applicant's reduction  to  the  grade  of  airman  first  class  was 
invalid based upon regulation.  We note that applicant received a 
foot injury in March  1993  and a physical  exam revealed that  he 
was above his maximum allowable weight.  He was entered into the 
Weight Management Program (WMP) and subsequently received Letters 
of  Reprimand  for  unsatisfactory  performance  and  ultimately 
demoted to the grade of airman first class on 13 October 1995 for 
failure to keep fit.  Based on findings of an Informal Physical 
Evaluation Board  (IPEB) , the Secretary of the Air Force directed 
that  applicant  be  discharged  with  severance  pay  under  the 
provisions of  Title  10 U.S.C. 1203.  The applicant's commander 
then  invalidated  the  13  October  1995  demotion  action  and 
reinstated the applicant to the grade of senior airman effective 
13 August  1996.  As  stated by  HQ AFPC/JA,  the  invalidation- of 
applicant's demotion  and  reinstatement  to  the  grade  of  senior 
airman on 13  August  1996  entitled the applicant to back pay  for 
the  10  months  for  which  he  received  airman  first  class  pay. 
Therefore, we  agree  with  the  opinion and  recommendation of  HQ 
AFPC/JA  that  applicant's reinstatement  to  the  grade  of  senior 
airman should be  corrected to  reflect the original date he  was 
promoted  to senior airman.  In view of  the above, we  recommend 
applicant's records be corrected as indicated below. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating  to  APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  show  that  he  was  not 
reduced to the grade of Airman First Class on  13 October  1995, 
but  on that date, he  continued to serve in the grade of  Senior 
Airman  with  an  effective  date  and  date  of  rank  of  15 February 
1991 and  is entitled to all pay  and  allowances from  13 October 
1995 until the date of his discharge on 19 August 1996. 

5 

. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 1 2   May 1998,  under the provisions of AFI 36- 
2603 : 

Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member 
Mr. Loren S. Perlstein, Member 

. _  

* 

All  members voted  to correct the records, as recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C. 
Exhibit D. 
Exhibit E. 
Exhibit F. 
Exhibit G. 
Exhibit H. 
Exhibit I. 
Exhibit J. 

DD Form 149,  dated 30 May 96,  w/atchs. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSFC2, dated' 1 Aug 96. 
Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 24  Oct 96. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 8 Nov 96,  w/atch. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 10 Dec 96. 
Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 22  Apr 97. 
Letter, DFAS-DE/FYCC, dated 28  Jul 97,  w/atchs. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 5 Aug 9 7 .  
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 8   Aug 9 7 .  

THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ T?7--& 

Panel Chair 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 

% 

WASHINGTON  DC 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT  SECRETARY 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  Medical Consultant to the Air Force BCMR 
1535 Command Drive, EE-Wing, 3rd Floor 
Andrews AFB MD 20762 

24 October 1996 

REQUES TED ACTION:  The applicant requests return of his former rank of SRA. 

FACTS:  The entire medical record is not submitted for review therefore the opinion requested is 
based upon portions of the medical record and personnel record and correspondence that is submitted with 
the applicant’s package. 

There is testimony offered that the applicant suffered a LOD “yes” injury to his right ankle and/or 

foot on  17 March 1993. On 8 April 1993 the applicant had a physical examination and was noted to be 5 lbs 
over his Maximum Allowable Weight (MAW) according to the fitness standards set down in MI 35-1 1. 
There is no mention of a physical impairment affecting his fitness at this time other than the overweight 
condition. 

On 12 July 1993 there was an AF Form 422 issued that says “NOT OK FOR WMP, OK FOR FIT 

(an exercise program) and says further “waiting for thyroid results”.  There is nothing on this profile to 
indicate an ankle or foot problem. 

The applicant was formally entered into the WMP on 24 August 1996 and showed a weight gain of 
9 lbs in the intervening four months since his physical exam while awaiting medical evaluation.  His entry 
weight was 217 lbs.  And his Body Fat Measurement (BFM) was 24 percent which was four percent over the 
maximum allowable for his height and age.  There is an AF Form 422 of 17 August 1993 clearing the 
applicant for the WMP and indicating that because of a foot problem he is excused from step aerobics but 
cleared for bicycle exercise. 

The WMP records indicates that the applicant dropped below his MAW after September 1993 but 
then made slow and erratic progress toward his BFM maximum finally achieving this on 18 April 1994 at 
which time he was transferred to stage two for maintenance.  It should be noted that during all of this time 
the applicant was apparently on profile for modified aerobics and in the FIT exercise program. 

The applicant remained at his goal only one month and then gained 4 percent by the next month 

measurement.  Thereafter in spite of significant losses of weight the applicant’s body fat never again 
measured within acceptable limits.  Between January and March of 1996 the applicant gained a total of 28 
lbs and 5 percent body fat.  The last recorded weight is 237 lbs or 56 lbs above the achieved low weight of 
18 1 Ibs on 20 March 1995.  The applicants four failures to progress leading to demotion were spread over 
several months and each was pi‘operly documented and followed by appropriate administrative action and 

DISCUSSION:  As noted in the letter from Captain Anders, a medical provider, weight control is 
achieved through a balance of calories consumed and calories burned.  It requires an excess of about 3600 
Kcal to be able to store one pound of fat or conversely it requires about 3600 Kcal of energy burned to 
consume a pound of stored fat.  A common example of this is that it takes a five mile brisk walk to bum off 
the calories in one medium sized piece of apple pie.  It is certainly easier to reduce or maintain weight and 
body fat when aerobic exercise is utilized, but it is entirely possible to accomplish either weight/l3FM 
reduction or maintenance through diet alone.  In other words don’t eat the pie.  The one recourse that the 
applicant may have had, namely to apply for a permanent change of maximum BFM, which might have 
been pursued during the window of opportunity when the applicant was below maximum weight but above 
maximum BFM, if initiated there is no supportive documentation presented that this process been 
considered prior to processing the administrative discharge in accordance with AFI 35-1 1.  The applicant or 
any of the health care providers caring for him could have applied for a permanent waiver in the applicant’s 
BFM standard.  This waiver request, which is authorized to be approved by wing commanders, is initiated 
by a member, supported by medical opinion indicating that the member is fit at a body fat level above that 
determined by the standard method of measurement. because of a problem relating to a muscular body 
build, e.g. powerlifters or genetic tendencies which affect the distribution of fat, e.g. some Native 
Americans, and therefore the present measurement nomogram is not an accurate estimation of BFM or 
fitness when using standard (AFI 35-1 1) tape measurement techniques.  This request must be validated by a 
proper military appearance in uniform and most wing commanders require either a personal appearance or a 
set of photographs of the applicant in uniform.  Apparently the medical providers, all of whom know of this 
waiver authority, believed that a BFM of 20 percent was attainable and reasonable for the applicant. 

- 

There are in addition many ways to exercise for a motivated person using only upper body exercise, 

as demonstrated by many paraplegic athletes.  It is not unusual for members on the WMP to be on profiles 
for injury or disease which modi& either their ability to exercise or to diet.  The requirements to continue to 
lose fat are not then waived but the member is encouraged to use the other modality more fully.  A waiver 
for activities limiting the use of the lower extremities does not put the applicant in a status of “over which he 
had no control” with regard to BFM standards.  The amount of weight that the applicant gained in the 
months of January through March of 1995 represents an excess of 1500 Kcal per day over that amount of 
food (approx 2200 Kcal) that it takes to maintain a person of his size.  There is no evidence or testimony 
offered that indicates to this consultant that the applicant could not have succeeded in achieving and 
maintaining the BFM standards as set down in AFI 35- 1 1.  Administrative action appears to have been 
appropriate or if anything generously lenient. 

RECOMMENDATION:  The Medical Consultant for the BCMR recommends that this application 

be denied. 

I 

HENRY F. DhbIS, Colbnel, USAF, MC 
Medical Consultant to the Air Force BCMR 

. 

D E P A R T M E N T  OF  T H E  A I R   F O R C E  

H E A D Q U A R T E R S   A I R   F O R C E   P E R S O N N E L  C E N T E R  

R A N D O L P H  A I R   F O R C E   B A S E  T E X A S  

U.S. AIR FORCE 

8  k46V  896 

1 9 4 7 -  1 9 9 7  

MEMORANDUM FOR AFPC/JA 
AFBCMR 
IN TURN 

FROM:  HQ AFPCLDPPPWB 

550 C Street West, Ste 8 
Randolph AFB TX 78 1 50-47 1 1 

SUBJECT:  Application for Correction of Military Records 

Requested Action.  The applicant is requesting to have his administrative demotion be voided and 
his former grade of senior airman be reinstated. 

Reason for Request.  Applicant believes his reduction in grade due to his failure to maintain his 
weight within required Air Force standards was unjust because he had medical problems. 

Facts.  The applicant was demoted fi-om the grade of senior airman to airman first class under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2503  for failure to maintain his weight within required Air Force standards. 

Discussion.  While the applicant was demoted under the provisions of M I  36-2503 he is not 
protesting the procedural correctness of the demotion action but rather the basis for it.  His 
primary complaint is that he believes the reduction should not have taken place because of the 
medical problems he was having during that time fi-ame. It is noted the Office of Primary 
Responsibility (OPR) for the Weight Management Program and the Medical Consultant to the 
AFBCMR has reviewed this case and both have recommended denial.  We defer to their 
recommendations.  However, should the AFBCMR void the AFI 36-2503 reduction, the applicant 
will be entitled to have his former grade of senior airman reinstated with an effective date and date 
of rank of 15 Feb 91. 

Recommendation.  See discussion paragraph above. 

n&Ua4#& 

DONALD B. SLATE 
Ass't  Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section 
Airman Promotion Branch 

DEPARTMENT O F  T H E  A I R   FORCE 

H E A D Q U A R T E R S  A I R   F O R C E   P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R  

R A N D O L P H  A I R   F O R C E  B A S E  T E X A S  

1 August 1996 

MEMORANDUM FOR  SAFMIBR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPSFC2 

550 C Street West Ste 37 
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-4739 

Requested Action:  Applicant desires being returned to the rank of SrA.  The applicant 

contends his failures within the Weight Management Program (WMP) were due to problems beyond 
his control. 

Basis for Request:  Applicant states he received an administrative reduction to the rank of 

AlC due to his fourth failure in the WMP.  Applicant contends his inability to meet body fat standards 
was a result of a medical condition which was beyond his control. 

Discussion:  Maintaining Air Force weight standards is an individual responsibility. Obesity 

not only detracts from a professional military appearance and the confidence the public has in their 
national defense, but according to the National Institute of Health (NIH), it is also a dangerous health 
risk.  NIH reports obesity is as lethal as high blood pressure or smoking cigarettes and causes heart 
attacks, strokes, diabetes, and cancer.  Therefore, exceeding Air Force weight standards increases a 
person’s risk of serious health problems, thereby impacting on the individual’s and the Air Force’s 
mission readiness. 

The WMP is a rehabilitative program designed to encourage safe, effective weight losshody fat 

reduction, and closely replicates proven civilian weight loss programs.  Individual’s who allow 
themselves to exceed the Maximum Allowable Weight (MAW) standard are subject to administrative 
actions that may reflect during and after their career.  Administrative actions may consist of 
counseling, reprimands, denial of promotion, and ultimately involuntary separation.  These actions 
support good order and discipline necessary for a strong military force. 

Unit commanders may approve temporary medical deferrals for participants in Phase I of the 

WMP (the active weighthody fat loss phase), when recommended by a medical practitioner. 
Commanders are required to notify individuals who get deferrals that they remain ineligible for many 
career related events, since the temporary medical deferral (weight status code 5) is considered Phase I 
of the WMP.  Individuals with the temporary medical deferral are exempt from weight checks, body fat 
measurements and/or participation in an exercise program for the duration of the deferral, at which 
time, a new base line is established and the member continues in the program. 

- 

- 

1 

c 

’ 

2 

Facts:  The applicant was placed into the WMP effective 24 Aug 93 and received four 

unsatisfactory progress evaluations.  AFI 40-502,  Table 1, provides a guide for administrative actions 
for personnel on the WMP who receive unsatisfactory progress evaluations.  This table provides the 
option of “administrative demotion” after the third failure in the program and “administrative 
separation” after the fourth failure.  The member’s commander elected to give him a letter of 
reprimand after the third failure and after the fourth failure, administered the demotion to A1C.  on 20 
Jan 95, prior to the member being demoted the commander stated in his letter to the member that he 
was aware of the member’s medical condition which hampered his participation in some aerobic 
activities which required prolonged standing.  However, the commander felt the member could perform 
other aerobic activities under the supervision of the gym personnel and reenrolled the member in the 
FIT class to assist him with weighthody fat reduction. 

Recommendation:  Deny request.  The commander was aware of the member’s medical 

condition; however, it was apparent to the commander that the member could still maintain progress 
within the WMP utilizing proper aerobic activities. 

VICTOR V. VILLARREAL, SMSgt, USAF 
NCOIC, Commanders Programs Branch 

4 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

22 Apr 97 
9601 597 

FROM:  BCMR Medical Consultant 

.i 

1535 Command Drive, EE Wing, 3rd Floor 
Andrews AFB MD  20762-7002 

SUBJECT:  Application for Correction of Military Records 

j . 

Applicant's entire case file has been reviewed and is forwarded with the following 

findings, conclusions and recommendations. 

REQUESTED ACTION:  Applicant requests return of former ran of Senior Airman 

(SRA) which was administratively vacated on 13 Oct 95 for failure to reach and maintain 
body weight and body fat standards.  A second review is asked by 
Chief, General and Administrative Law at Randolph AFB after learning of applicant's 
medical separation. 

FACTS:  An extremely erudite review of this entire case was prepared b- 

n 24 Oct 96, and reader is referred to this summary for details. 

Applicant's basic contention is that he was unable to maintain standards because of an 
injury to his foot that occurred in March 1993 and which prevented him from participating 
in exercise programs that would have helped him reach these goals.  Because of the 
continuing problem with foot pain, he was found unfit for continued military duty and 
discharged under provisions of AFI 36-321 2 with a 10% disability severance pay on I 9  
Aug 96 to which applicant agreed as noted on AF Form 1 180 dated 18 Jun 96. 

DISCUSSION:  Notwithstanding the reason for his separation, the fact remains, 

review, that individual had within his ability the means to reach 

as outlined by Co 
and maintain fitness standards and nonetheless failed to do so.  Review of records 
shows that no time was lost from work because of his alleged injury and no LOD 
determination was made (as required for any injury that leads to loss of duty time of 24 
hours or more or which results in a possible permanent disabilify). (Emphasis added) 
Action and disposition in this case are proper and reflect compliance with Air Force 
directives which implement the law. 

RECOMMENDATION: The BCMR Medical  Consultant is of the opinion that no 

change in the records is warranted and the application should be denied. 

FREDERICK W. HORNICK, Col. USAF, MC, FS 
Chief, Medical Consultant, BCMR 
Medical Advisor SAF Personnel Council 

DEPARTMENT O F  THE A I R   F O R C E  

H E A D Q U A R T E R S   A I R   F O R C E 4 P E R S O N N E L  C E N T E R  

R A N D O L P H  AIR  FORCE  BASE TEXAS 

5 August 1997 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCIJA (Capt Wright) 

550 C Street West Ste 44 
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-4746 

SUBJECT:  Application for Correction of Military Records - 

REQUESTED ACTION:  Applicant requests reinstatement to the rank of senior airman. 
Applicant  submitted  this  application  request  in  May  1996, two  months  prior  to  his medical 
discharge from the United States Air Force.  Subsequently, six days before he was discharged, 
the applicant's commander invalidated the previous demotion and reinstated the applicant to the 
rank of senior airman. However, it does not appear that the applicant received the entitled back 
pay resulting Erom the invalidation of his demotion. 

BASIS FOR REQUEST:  Applicant challenged his demotion to airman first class for 
failure to  keep fit in the Weight Management Program (WMP).'  The applicant argued that his 
failure to maintain weight and body  fat standards was the result of a physical cause beyond his 
control. 

FACTS AND DISCUSSION: On  17 Mar 93,  applicant's  foot was severely sprained 
while playing  basketball  at  a weekly unit  sports event.  M e r  suffering the  injury, a physical 
exam revealed that  the applicant was above his maximum allowable weight.  On 24  Aug  93, 
applicant was formerly entered into the WMP.  Although he was able to reduce his weight, he 
could not  meet the required body  fat percentage standard.  Throughout his participation in the 
WMP, applicant was on a  series of medical profiles due to his foot injury, which  limited his 
ability to  perform aerobic or impact type activities.  Although the applicant's  commander was 
aware  of  his  physical  limitations,  the  applicant  received  two  letters  of  reprimand  for 
unsatisfactory performance  and  was  ultimately demoted to  the  grade of  airman  first class  on 
13 Oct 95 for failure to keep fit. 

On  1  Jul  96,  based  on  the  findings  of  the  Informal  Physical  Evaluation  Board,  the 
Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  determined  the  applicant physically  unfit  for  continued  military 
service and directed that the applicant be discharged with severance pay under the provisions of 

' See AFI 36-2503 (Administrative Separation of A d e n ) ,  paragraph 3.4 (Failure to Keep Fit),  13 Jul94. 

I

-

 

d 

10 U.S.C.  1203.  In  response, the applicant’s commander invalidated. the  13 Oct 95 demotion 
action  and  reinstated the  applicant to  the  grade  of  senior  airman,  effective  13 Aug  96.  The 
commander  cited  AFI  36-2503,  paragraph  17.4.1,  as  the  basis  for  the  reinstatement  of  the 
applicant’s rank.* The applicant was discharged from the Air Force on 19 Aug 96. 

The invalidation of the applicant’s 13 Oct 95 demotion and reinstatement to the grade of 
senior airman on 13 Aug 96 entitled the applicant to back pay for those 10 months for which he 
received airman first class pay.  In researching this case, we discovered that the applicant has not 
received  any  back  pay  with  respect  to  his  reinstated  rank.3  Additionally,  the  applicant’s 
DD Form 214 contains an error in block  1201) which  lists the effective date of pay  grade for 
senior airman as  13 Oct 95.  The correct date should be  the original date he was promoted to 
senior airman, 16 Feb 9 1. 

RECOMMENDATION:  In summary, for the reasons outlined above, we recommend 
that the Board  grant the applicant appropriate back pay and  allowances.  We  also recommend 
that the applicant’s DD Form 214, block 12(h), be corrected to read 16 Feb 91. 

Senior Attorney-Advisor 

AFI 36-2503, paragraph 17.4.1 states, in pertinent part, that “Airmen will not be demoted if they can present 
convincing medical evidence that they cannot attain or maintain weight and body fat standards because of physical 
or organic causes beyond their control.” 
See DFAS-DEFYCC letter dated 28 Jul97.