AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET "4BER:  97-02125 

COUNSEL:  NONE 

fFB  7  9  ?&$J 

HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

The Enlisted Performance Report  (EPR) ,  closing 1 March  1997, 

1. 
be removed from his records. 

2.  His demotion from the  grade of  technical sergeant  (E-6) to 
staff sergeant  (E-5) be declared void and previous grade of E-6 
reinstated. 

An  injury  to  his  knee  while  playing  basketball  in  1993  has 
prevented him from reaching and maintaining his weight within Air 
Force  standards and  resulted  in his  demotion  and  receipt  of  a 
referral EPR. 
The  applicant  states  that  because  of  a  biased  distortion  of 
judgment  and  what  he  strongly  believes  to  be  a  violation  of 
medical ethics and patient rights, he has been the victim of an 
error or injustice. 
In  support  of  the  appeal, 
statement and documentation regarding his knee problems. 

the  applicant  submits  his  personal 

The applicant's  complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
On 19 July 1993, the applicant's  maximum allowable weight was 181 
3  pounds and his maximum allowable body  fat percentage was  24%. 
Since his  weight  was  205 pounds  and  his  body  fat  25%,  he  was 
entered into the Weight Management Program  (WMP). 

The  applicant  received  a  Record  of  Individual  Counseling  on 
17 December  1993  for  his  first  unsatisfactory  WMP  progress 
evaluation. 

. 

On 29 November 1994, the applicant received an LOR for his second 
unsatisfactory  WMP  progress  evaluation  and  an  Unfavorable 
Information File  (UIF) was established. 

On  2  March  1995,  the  applicant  received  an  LOR  for  his  third 
unsatisfactory WMP progress evaluation and a UIF was established. 
On 2 May  1996, a Medical Evaluation Board  (MEB) convened at the 
request of  the  First  Sergeant  to determine  the  effects  of  the 
applicant's  knee  problems  on  his  progress  in  the  Weight 
Management  Program  (WMP).  Based  on  the  diagnosis  of  chronic 
patellofemoral  syndrome  the  MEB  recommended  the  applicant  be 
referred to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board  (IPEB). 

On 28 May 1996, an IPEB convened and found the applicant fit for 
duty and returned him to duty. 
On  9 August  1 9 9 6 ,   the applicant  received a Letter of  Reprimand 
(LOR) for his fourth unsatisfactory WMP progress evaluation. 
The applicant received an LOR  on 6 December 1 9 9 6   for failing t o  
attend a 90-day Fitness Program at the base gym. 
The applicant was  ineligible for promotion consideration to the 
grade  of  master  sergeant  during  cycle  9737  since  his  Weight 
Status Code indicated unsatisfactory progress in the WMP, on or 
after the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date  (PECOD) . 
The  applicant  was  demoted  from  technical  sergeant  to  staff 
sergeant  (E-5) with  an  effective  date  and  DOR  of  10 February 
1997, for failure to maintain Air Force weight standards. 
On  7 March  1997,  the  applicant  received  an  LOR  for  his  fifth 
unsatisfactory WMP progress evaluation. 
On 1 December 1998,  the applicant retired for length of service 
in the grade of staff sergeant. 
A resume of applicant's performance, since 1990, follows: 

- 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

2 May 90 
2 May 91 
2 May 92 
2 May 93 
2 May 94 
1 Mar 95 
1 Mar 96 
1 Mar 98 
*  Contested report 

*  1 Mar 97  (Referral) 

4 
5 
5 
4 
4 
4 
4 
2  (6 of  7 marked down) 
5 

2 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and states 
that applicant's  contention that his weight problem was a result 
of his 1993 injury and subsequent forced inactivity is not based 
on his record of almost 20 years of difficulties.  The applicant 
was originally rejected for military  service based on his being 
overweight  in  1978, and  was  subsequently allowed  into the  Air 
Force when  he  managed  to  lose  weight  to  enlistment  standards. 
Furthermore, the applicant was able to lose weight during several 
periods  in  spite  of  his  knee  problems. 
With  no  underlying 
medical condition adding to his weight problem, he has no valid 
concern that he was unable to achieve his goals based solely on 
his knee problem.  The evidence of record show that applicant was 
afforded  adequate  counseling  and  an  opportunity  to  meet  WMP 
As  a  result,  he  was 
standards  and  failed  to  do  so. 
administratively demoted.  The BCMR Medical  Consultant finds no 
inequity  or  impropriety  in  the  action  upon  which  to  base  a 
recommendation to grant applicant's request. 
A  copy of the Air Force Evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 
The  Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this 
application  and  states  that  applicant  is  not  contesting  the 
procedural correctness of his demotion-  Rather, he contests the 
basis  for  the  demotion  (Le.,  failure  to  meet  AF  weight 
standards). 
The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  has  addressed  this 
issued and they defer to that recommendation. 
AFPC/DPPPWB  states  that  applicant  contends  he  was  denied  the 
opportunity to take the required promotion tests for cycle 9737, 
although he had  two consecutive months when he  had  satisfactory 
progress on the WMP. 
However, in the applicant's  case, even if 
he  had  not  been  demoted,  the  fact  that  he  was  making 
unsatisfactory progress on the WMP after the PECD for cycle 9737, 
(31 December 1996),  rendered him  ineligible for promotion.  In 
addition, assuming he was not demoted and otherwise eligible, he 
received a  referral EPR  after the PECD which also rendered him 
ineligible for promotion.  Therefore, they  recommend  denial  of 
the application. 
A copy of the Air Force Evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. 
The  Chief,  BCMR  and  SSB  Section,  AFPC/DPPPA,  reviewed  this 
application and states that applicant has provided no statements 
from  the  evaluators  of  the  contested  report. 
In  order  to 
successfully challenge the validity of an evaluation report, it 
is important to hear from the evaluators.  Although the applicant 
focuses on his lack of progression in the WMP  as the basis  f o r  
the referral EPR,  it is apparent from verbiage in the report that 
there were other issues involved.  In his comments, the indorser 

3 

states the applicant failed to keep his supervisors informed of 
his medical  status and  of  medical  appointments.  The applicant' 
implied that because the first sergeant knew about his status and 
appointments,  it  was  not  necessary  to  inform  his  supervisors, 
They feel it  is imperative f o r   a supervisor to know the medical 
status and  whereabouts  of  his/her  subordinates.  Based  on  the 
evidence  provided  and  the  findings  of  the  BCMR  Medical 
Consultant, they recommend denial of applicant's  requests, 
A copy of the Air Force Evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. 

AP PL I CANT ' S   REVIEW OF AIR FORCE E VALUATIONS: 
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided a 
copy of his WMP  file which is attached at Exhibit G. 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
1. 
law or regulations. 
2.  The application was timely filed. 
3 .   Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence of  probable  error  or  injustice.  We 
took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits  of  the  case;  however,  we  agree  with  the  opinions  and 
recommendations of  the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the 
basis  for our  conclusion  that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the 
victim  of an error or injustice.  It  appears the applicant was 
provided  every  opportunity  to  lose  the  required  weight  and  he 
failed to take advantage of those opportunities.  Therefore, in 
the  absence of  evidence to the  contrary, we  find no  compelling 
basis  to  recommend  granting  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  issue(s) 
involved.  Therefore, the request f o r   a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

THE  BOARD DETERMINES THA T: 
The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate  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. 

4 

. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on  16 December  1998,  under  the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603: 

Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, 
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member 
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member 
Mr. Phillip E. Horton, Examiner  (without vote) 

Panel Chair 

- 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 

A. 
B, 
C. 
D, 
E. 
F. 
G. 

DD Form 
Appl i c ai 
Letter, 
Letter , 
Letter, 
Letter, 
Letter, 

149, dated 19 May 97, w/atchs. 
it's Master Personnel Records, 
BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 
AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 4 Nov 97. 
AFPC/DPPPA, dated 17 Nov 97, w/ 
SAF/MIBR, dated 1 Dec 97- 
- -   - . -  
Applicant, 

97. 

16 Oct 
'atchs. 

dated 31 J u l   98, w/atchs. 

Panel Chair 

~ 

5