AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS. * ' J - * " . - - * *
-
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 9 7 - 0 2 2 0 0
COUNSEL :
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. Her reassignment to HQ ARPC on 22 March 1 9 9 7 due to the
Weight Management Program (WMP) be rescinded.
The 13rc) ASTS commander and executive officer be removed from
2.
their duties.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her request for a medical deferral from the WMP was
inappropriately denied by the unit commander. She was
discriminated
denied.
Policies/procedures were breached. The WMP at the -ASTS
is
very discriminatory and the WMP at the
AW is not properly or
fairly administered. She provides examples and materials which
she believes support her contention that others were treated
differently in the WMP.
Her complete submission is at Exhibit A.
against
her
and
rights
were
AW Inspector General (IG) , alleging the
perly administered. Specific individual
erential treatment. The
commander to inves
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
An anonymous letter, dated 2 November 1996, was forwarded to the
ASTS WMP was not
e mentioned as
being given
AW commander
e the letter's
requested the
STS commander responded on 2 March 1996,
allegations.
concluding that the unit executive officer was not harassing
members of the unit. (See Exhibit A)
Applicant's 17 March 1 9 9 7 complaint to the IG was referred for
appropriate action on 25 March 1 9 9 7 . On 9 June 1997, HQ ARPC/IG
advised her that her allegations regarding her involuntary
reassignment to HQ ARPC and her request for a medical deferral
from the WMP did not fall within its purview. She was also
informed that she could file an IG complaint if there was
evidence a specific right was denied or there was a breach of
established policies or procedures. The IG also provided her a
copy of a letter to them from the Director of Personnel, who
indicated that there was no basis for canceling her involuntary
reassignment action. (See Exhibit A)
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application,
extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in
the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this
Record of Proceedings. (See Exhibit C)
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Military Personnel Division, HQ AFRC/DPM, reviewed
this appeal and states that the applicant was found to be 2 % over
her maximum body fat standard (BFS) on 2 November 1 9 9 6 . She was
placed in the initial entry body fat loss period of the WMP and
given until the 4 January 1 9 9 7 Unit Training Assembly (UTA) to
meet her BFS. She failed to show up for the January UTA and
received an unexcused absence. Further, she did not attend the
1-2 February 1 9 9 7 UTA, claiming she had a family crisis. Her
commander advised her to attend the UTA on 8 February 1 9 9 7 . Upon
her arrival, she was found to be over her BFS. At that time, she
revealed she was taking three medications that may cause weight
retention. She was advised to obtain medical documentation from
her physician explaining the situation and given a deadline of
22 February 1 9 9 7 . When the requested medical documentation was
not received within the requested time period, the commander
proceeded with involuntary reassignment procedures.
On
28 February 1 9 9 7 , she submitted medical documentation along with
On 1 March 1997, the
her request for a medical deferral.
commander disapproved her request. The Chief states there is no
evidence in the case to indicate the commander's actions were
inappropriate. The unit commander is the approval/disapproval
authority for medical deferrals. Therefore, denial is recommend.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 20 October 1 9 9 7 for review and comment within 30
days. On 2 2 October 1 9 9 7 , this office received a letter advising
2
9 7 - 0 2 2 0 0
.
that applicant had retained an attorney. As of this date, no
response has been received by this .office from either the
applicant or her counsel.
The retaining letter is at Exhibit E.
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
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. After
a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's
submission, we are not persuaded that relief is warranted.
Applicant's contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find
these uncorroborated 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 his burden that
he has suffered either an error o r an injustice. In view of the
above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
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.
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 2 Jun 1998 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603 :
Mr. LeRoy T. Baseman, Panel Chair
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member
3
9 7 - 0 2 2 0 0
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Jul 97, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFRC/DPM, dated 18 Sep 97.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Oct 97.
Exhibit E. Letter, Counsel, 18 Oct 97.
LEROY T. BASEMAN
Panel Chair
4
9 7 - 0 2 2 0 0
HQ AFRC/SGPA states in their memorandum, dated 13 July 2000, that they do not find any medical documentation in this request or from the applicant’s former Reserve medical unit which indicates she had a medically disqualifying condition at the time her commander took administrative action. However, at any prior time when she was over the maximum weight allowance, she always met body fat measurements. Exhibit E. Applicant, dated, 20 September 2000.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-02949
In order to qualify for the bonus, members in this AFSC located at McGuire had to reenlist for a period of six years (the applicant had reenlisted for two years on 13 Sep 01). In a letter dated 5 Oct 01 (Exhibit A), the UCA advised he had intended to counsel the applicant to delay reenlisting until the new bonus list came out on 1 Oct 01 to see if her AFSC would be on it. However, she was no longer eligible for the reenlistment bonus as she had since been reassigned to Willow Grove ARB...
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. 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. ...
She be retroactive promoted to the grade of 0-4 (major), which should have occurred during the Fiscal Year 1996 (FY96) Reserve of the Air Force Line/Health Professionals Board, that convened at Headquarters Air Reserve Personnel Center (HQ ARPC) on 6 - 10 March 1995. The investigation did in fact conclude and recommend in your favor.” In support of the appeal, applicant submits HQ ARPC/IG Letter, Request for TIG investigation, and Investigating Officer’s Reports. While this Board agrees...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-03257
She be retroactive promoted to the grade of 0-4 (major), which should have occurred during the Fiscal Year 1996 (FY96) Reserve of the Air Force Line/Health Professionals Board, that convened at Headquarters Air Reserve Personnel Center (HQ ARPC) on 6 - 10 March 1995. The investigation did in fact conclude and recommend in your favor.” In support of the appeal, applicant submits HQ ARPC/IG Letter, Request for TIG investigation, and Investigating Officer’s Reports. While this Board agrees...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00509 INDEX CODE: 136.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be granted an Air Force Reserve retirement based on 20 satisfactory years of service. A memorandum, dated 18 Dec 97, indicated that the applicant, with an expiration term of service (ETS) of 12 Dec 97, had failed to reenlist and that...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00509
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00509 INDEX CODE: 136.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be granted an Air Force Reserve retirement based on 20 satisfactory years of service. A memorandum, dated 18 Dec 97, indicated that the applicant, with an expiration term of service (ETS) of 12 Dec 97, had failed to reenlist and that...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant, a member of the Air Force Reserve, was processed through the Disability Evaluation System (DES) when her disability case was referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) in December 1999, for a diagnosis of dysthymic disorder. Counsel provided a statement supporting the applicant’s requests to change the IG findings; credit satisfactory service to 20 plus years; change the AF...
The applicant should submit a request for the removal of the Article 15 to the commander who directed that it be placed in his records. In addition, the majority of the Board is sufficiently persuaded that the Article 15 should also be removed from the applicant’s record. Based on the available evidence of record, I find no basis upon which to favorably consider this portion of the application, and strongly recommend you deny the majority’s recommendation to remove the contested Article 15...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00843
As a result of missing medical records she was not able to complete her enlistment with the PAANG and begin earning points until 23 January 2004, after the affected R/R year had passed. DPP notes the issue of missing medical records as the cause of her not earning her final point with the PAANG in time is not relevant. DPP’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...