dUL 2 4 1998 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-00425 
COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

c 

I 1 

, 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
1.  Her involuntary discharge, under AFR  36-12, be changed to a 
medical retirement. 

She be retroactively promoted to the grade of major with all 

2. 
back pay and allowances. 

Air Force Base  (AFB) ,- 

damage  to 
ion operation 
.  Applicant 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
She  was  unjustly  removed  from  the  Majorls promotion  list  and 
separated  from  the  Air  Force  against  the  recommendation  and 
direction of a Board of Inquiry (BOI) .  The purpose of the BOI, 
convened on  22 March  1990,  was  to  review her  medical  records, 
including  several  operations  and  procedures  to  correct  severe 
initially  caused  by  a  tubal 
not  being  placed  back  on the 
promotion list, she was considered to have twice failed to make 
promotion and was therefore separated from the Air Force.  The 
Veterans Administration  (VA) has reviewed her case and found her 
physical  claim  to be  true  and  accurate with  a  30%  disability 
rating . 
In qppport of her appeal, applicant  submits a statement from a 
former rater of  an Officer Effectiveness Report  (OER) f o r   the 
period closing 26 May 1980, promotion documentation, a statement 
from a medical physician, dated 1 September 1987, a letter from 
the VA, dated 27 March  1991,  and  letter of  appreciation, dated 
February 1986. 
Applicant%  submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

- 

-=.m 

* 
t 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant in the Reserve of the 
Air Force on 5 June 1976 and was subsequently ordered  to active 
duty on 15 October 1976. 

Applicant was  appointed  a captain in the Regular Air  Force on 
3 September 1982. 
Applicant  underwent a laparoscopic tubal  sterilization  in  1985 
and  developed post-operative abdominal wall  pain  that  required 
further  corrective  surgery  in  1986  and  1988  after  extensive 
work-up for other possible causes of the problem. 
,Applicant was selected for promotion to the grade of major by the 
;' Calendar Year 1986B  (CY86B) Central Major Promotion Board which 
convened on 1 December 1986.  On 22 December 1987 applicant was 
notified by her commander that action was being  taken to delay 
her promotion to the grade of major.  The specific reason was her 
continuous failure to meet  the weight standards specified in AFR 
35-11, the Air Force Weight Management Program. 
On  14  June  1988,  the  Secretary  of  the Air  Force  approved the 
removal  of  the  applicant's  name  from  the  list  of  officers 
selected for promotion to the grade of major by the CY86B Major 
Selection  Board.  The  removal  action  resulted  in  applicant's 
becoming a once deferred officer. 
Applicant was considered for promotion to the grade of major by 
the  CY89  Central  Major  Selection  Board  which  convened  on 
4  December 1989.  She was not selected and this was considered a 
second  non-selection. 
Applicant  had  a  mandatory  date  of 
separation (DOS) of 31 July 1990. 
Applicant's  Officer  Effectiveness  Report/Officer  Performance 
Report  (OER/OPR) profile is as follows : 

PERIOD ENDING 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

31 Jul 85 
31 Jan 86 
31 Jan 87 
31 Jan 88 
#  31 Oct 88 
31 Oct 89 
1 Jul 90 

7 

w 

1-1-1 
1-1-1 
1-1-1 
1 - m  (Referral)  * 
Does Not Meet Standards 
Does Not Meet Standards 
Meets Standards 

(Referral) 
(Referral) 

#  Top report at time of non-selection for promotion to the grade 

of major by the CY89 Central Major Selection Board 

Applicant  was  honorably  discharged  on  31  July  1990  under  the 
provisions of AFR  36-12  (Involuntary Discharge for Twice Failed 
Promotion)  in  the  grade  of  captain.  She  served  13  years,  9 
months and 17 days of active duty. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The Superintendent, Officer Promotion Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPOO, 
states that  in accordance with AFR  36-89,  Promotion of  Active 
Duty List Officers, a commander should initiate action to remove 
an  officer's  name  from  a  promotion  list  when  the  commander 
believes the officer should not be promoted.  Promotion is not a 
reward for past  service.  It is an advancement to a position of 
greater responsibility based on the requirements of the Air Force 
, and  the  officer's future  potential. 
If  there  is  reason  to 
;  believe  the  officer  is  mentally,  physically,  morally,  or 
professionally not qualified to perform  the duties of the next 
grade, it is in the best interest of the Air Force for the proper 
authority to initiate action to delay the promotion, to find the 
officer  not  qualified,  or  to  remove  the  officer  from  the 
promotion list. 
Although the Board of Inquiry (BOI) recommended the applicant be 
retained on active duty, it also found the applicant had failed 
to meet and maintain Air Force standards of weight in that she: 
(a) did  repeatedly  fail  to  make  satisfactory  progress  while 
participating in the Weight Management Program; and  (b) she did 
have  medical  problems,  being  either  physiological  or 
psychological which did inhibit her ability to lose weight.  The 
applicant has not provided any evidence to support her contention 
that she is entitled to be promoted to major.  They recommend the 
application be denied. 
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 
The  Chief,  Medical  Consultant,  BCMR,  Medical  Advisor  SAF 
Personnel Council , states that applicant weighed  132 pounds and 
was 64" tall (llWNL1l-within normal limits per examining physician) 
at the time of her Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) physical 
examination  in  June  1974,  having  lost  20  pounds  over  the 
preceding four months.  This would indicate a pre-service weight 
problem even then.  Applicant had gained excessive weight dFring 
two  pregnancies  and  had  been  placed  on - m e  Weight  Management 
Program  (WMP) because  of  this.  In  the  three  years  she  was 
-suffering  the pain, she attributed inability to lose weight  to 
being unable to exercise properly due to the pain, and that this 
led to her failing to progress in the WMP.  This, in turn, is at 
least  partially  the  reason  she  contends she  failed her  first 
promotion opportunity to major.  Following corrective surgery in 
August  1988,  she reported that complete relief of her pain was 
provided.  In spite of this, she continued to fail to progress in 
the WMP leading to referral performance reports. 
While some of the failure of this individual to progress in the 
WMP  may  be  attributed  to  her  pain  and  inability  to  perform 
certain  exercises,  this  is  far  from  the  sole  cause  of  her 
problems as noted in her records.  The fact that applicant failed 
to control her weight  in almost  two years after relief of  her 
pain is evidence of factors other than the pain being responsible 

-  , 

for  her  administrative  separation. 
Evidence  of  record  and 
medical  examinations prior to separation indicate the-  applicant 
was fit and medically qualified for continued military service or 
appropriate  separation and did not  have  any physical  or mental 
condition  which  would  have  warranted  consideration  under  the 
provisions of AFR 35-4. 

They recommend the request be denied. 

The reason why  the applicant could be declared fit  for duty by 
the Air Force and later be granted service-connected disability 
,by the Department of Veterans Affairs  (DVA) lies in understanding 
/ the differences between Title 10, USC and Title 38, USC.  Title 
38, USC, which governs the DVA compensation system, was written 
to allow awarding compensation ratings for conditions that  are 
not  unfitting  for  military  service. 
Evidence  of  record 
establishes beyond  all  reasonable doubt that  the  applicant was 
medically  qualified  for continued active duty, that  the  reason 
for separation was proper and that no error or injustice occurred 
in this case. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit D. 
The  Chief,  Physical  Disability  Division, HQ  AFPC/DPPD,  states 
that  they  reviewed  the  applicant's application  and  verify  the 
applicant was never referred to or considered by  the Air Force 
Disability  System  under  AFR  35-4.  Eligibility  for disability 
processing  is  established  by  a Medical  Evaluation Board  (MEB) 
when that board  finds that the member may not be  qualified for 
continued military  service.  The decision to conduct an MEB  is 
made by the medical treatment facility providing health care to 
the member.  The record clearly shows that while  the applicant 
may  have  been  treated  for various  medical  conditions while  on 
active duty, none were  serious enough to  render her unfit  for 
further military service under the provisions of disability law 
and policy.  The Chief, HQ AFPC/DPPD fully agrees with the AFBCMR 
Medical Consultant's comments and recommendations. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evalu_ation  is  attachgd  at  - 
Exhibit E . 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
Copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the 
applicant  on  15  September  1997  for  review  and  response. 
Applicant  states, in part, that the Air Force did not  take the 
recommendation of the BO1 into Consideration and did not correct 
her  records  to  reflect  extenuating  circumstances as  they  are 
required  to  do.  The neurosurgical consultation, dated  14  May 
1391, clearly states the severity of her nerve damage.  She was 
given Doxepin which has a side effect of weight gain.  Applicant 
states that she had outstanding performance and she could perform 
management and acquisition duties but not any physical duties. 

4 

Applicant  contends that  key  records on consultants  and  doctor 
reports are missing from her file from 1988 to 1990 and the only 
ones which remain are from 1991, which clearly verify her claim 
of "continue chronic post-operative pain." 
A complete copy of the applicant's response, with attachments, is 
attached at Exhibit G. 

, , '  
I  THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
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 probable error or injustice.  After 
a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and  applicant's 
submission, we are not persuaded that her involuntary discharge 
should be changed to a medical retirement or that she be promoted 
to  the  grade  of  major  with  back  pay  and  allowances.  Her 
contentions  are  duly  noted;  however,  we  do  not  find  these 
assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  to 
override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  We  therefore 
agree with  the  recommendations of  the Air  Force  and adopt  the 
rationale  expressed  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the 
applicant has failed to sustain her burden that she has suffered 
either  an  error  or  an  injustice. 
Therefore,  we  find  no 
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought. 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 
The  applicant  be  notified that  the  evideGe presented  did  not 
jiem~fistrate  the  existence  of  probable  material  error  or 
injustice; that  the  application was  denied  without  a personal 
appearance; and that  the application will  only be  reconsidered 
upon  the  submission of  newly  discovered relevant  evidence  not 
considered with this application. 

a 

t 
t 

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

Mr. LeRoy T. Baseman, Panel Chair 
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member 
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member 

5 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form  149, dated 18 Nov 96, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPOO, undated. 
Exhibit D. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 11 Jul 97. 
Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Sep 97. 
Exhibit G.  Applicantls Letter, 

Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dtd 8 May 97. 

I 

LEROY T. BASEMAN 
Panel Chair 

t 
t