AIR FORCE 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-02695  &6 
COUNSEL:  None 
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

l!  $I ?'299 

APPLICANT REUUESTS THAT: 

His administrative discharge be  changed to a medical retirement 
or early retirement. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
He honestly feels that he was given an unfair chance to retire 
with honors.  While he was stationed at Shaw AFB he has witnessed 
dishonest and unfair situations that have gone unnoticed or have 
been so called 'Iswept under the carpet."  He was entered into the 
weight management program  (WMP) because he failed to meet the Air 
Force weight standards.  He was then sent to the hospital where 
it  was  determined  that  he  had  a  non-functioning  thyroid  gland 
which  the doctor's say caused  him  to gain the weight.  He was 
given medication to control the disease which he has to take f o r  
the rest of his life.  He gained more than 70 pounds in 3  months 
and it was due to the thyroid problem.  He was being treated but 
the  medication  does  not  assist  you  in  weight  loss.  It  only 
brings  your metabolism  levels to normal.  He  has  battled  this 
problem  since July  1994 and  feels more  steps should have  been 
taken to help him with the problem.  His unit  is and was filled 
with individuals with weight problems and to his knowledge he is 
the  first  to  be  discharged  for  it.  He  was  put  on  a  control 
roster by his previous commander who has since retired.  He was 
denied testing for two years under his command, but when the new 
commander was assigned to the unit his file was not reviewed and 
he again was denied testing for a total of  three years.  He was 
under  the  impression  that  his  file  should  have  been  reviewed 
yearly but  that was not the case.  If his records are reviewed, 
you will  see that  the weight management is the only blemish on 
his  records in  18 years of  service.  All  he  wanted  to do was 

retire with honors after serving his country proudly for 20 years 
of  dedicated service, but, he  fell short because  of  an illness 
that he had no control over. 
In  support  of  the  appeal,  applicant  submits  six  letters  of 
support and character references. 
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A .  

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
Applicant enlisted  in the Regular Air Force on 13 December 1978 
in the grade of airman basic for a period of 4  years. 
On 27 December 1993, applicant was found to have an underactive 
thyroid gland in the course of evaluating his chronic obesity and 
was  started on hormone replacement, reaching therapeutic levels 
by March 1994. 
On  27  July  1994,  applicant was  entered  into Weight  Management 
Program  (WMP) . 
He' weighed  236  pounds,  with  a  body  fat 
measurement  (BFM) of  35  percent.  His maximum  allowable weight 
(MAW) was 174 pounds and maximum body fat was 24 percent.  He was 
66 inches in height. 
On 8 December 1994, applicant was reentered into Phase I of  the 
WMP.  He weighed 235 pounds and had a body fat determined to be 
34 percent. 
On 5 January 1995, applicant's commander nonrecommended applicant 
for promotion testing. 
On  7  February  1996,  applicant  was  notified  of  his  commander's 
intent  to  initiate discharge action against him  for failure in 
the  WMP  and  exceeding  body  fat  standards.  Reasons  for  this 
action were: 

8 December  1994,  Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR): He  gained  3 
pounds  and  his  body  fat  increased 3  percent  over his  previous 
month's measurements.  He was reentered into Phase I of the WMP. 

20  March  1995,  LOR:  He  gained  2  pounds  and  his  body  fat 
remained at 34 percent.  The LOR was entered into an unfavorable 
information file (UIF). 

17 April 1995, Placement on the Control Roster: He gained 1 

pound and had 1 percent body fat. 

2 

97- 02695 

18 August 1995, LOR:  Gained 5  pounds and had 6 percent body 

fat.  The LOR was entered into his existing UIF. 

10 January 1996, LOR: Gained 9 pounds and had 1 percent body 

fat. The LOR was entered into his existing UIF. 

7  February  1996,  LOR:  Failing  to  lose  the  required  five 
He weighed 233 pounds and 

pounds and gaining 1 percent body fat. 
had a body fat of 33 percent. 
On 9 February 1996,  applicant acknowledged he  had been notified 
he had been recommended for discharge for failure in the weight 
control program -  exceeding body fat standards.  He did not waive 
his right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board 
or his right to military counsel. 
On 26 March 1996, an administrative discharge board convened and 
found applicant failed to satisfactorily progress in the WMP by 
not  losing either 1 percent  body fat or 5 pounds  following his 
previous monthly evaluation on six separate occasions: 1 December 
1994, 7 March 1995, 7 April 1995, 7 August 1995, 8 January 1996, 
and  7  February  1996. 
The  board  recommended  applicant  be 
separated from the Air Force with an honorable discharge, without 
probation  and  rehabilitation.  Because  of  the  length  of  the 
respondent's service, he  was  entitled  to  special  consideration 
for probation upon his request. 
On 29  March  1996,  applicant requested special consideration for 
probation based on his lengthy service. 
On 17 September 1996, applicant acknowledged receipt of letter of 
notification  notifying  him  of  approval  of  probation  and 
rehabilitation.  He also acknowledged his understanding that his 
failure  in  the  P&R  program  would  result  in  his  receiving  an 
honorable discharge.  Applicant  indicated he  accepted the offer 
of P&R. 
(EXAMINER'S NOTE:  Records pertaining to final discharge action 
is not available.) 

Applicant was honorably discharged from the Regular Air Force on 
26  July  1997,  in  the  grade  of  staff  sergeant,  under  the 
provisions  of  AFI  36-3208  (Weight Control  Failure).  He  had 
completed  18  years,  7  months,  and  14  days  of  total  active 
military service.  He received $19,304.00 in separation pay. 

3 

A  resume  of  the  applicant's  performance  reports  since  1990 
follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

97- 02695 

16 
16 
16 
16 
16 
31 
31 
16 
06 

Jan 
Jan 
Jan 
Jan 
Jan 
Oct 
Oct 
Dec 
Feb 

90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
94 
95 
96 
96 

(Referral) 
(Referral) 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The Chief Medical  Consultant ,  AFBCMR, reviewed this application 
and states that all efforts were expended in trying to help the 
applicant reach and maintain his MAW and BFM over the course of 
at least 10 years before he was administratively discharged.  He 
exhibited  the  ability  to  lose  weight  when  his  determination 
ruled, but he simply failed to assure continual vigilance.  While 
the  thyroid  condition  may  have  initially  contributed  to  his 
overweight/overfat condition, its control with proper medication 
paved the way for him to succeed in his efforts, and he did not 
do so.  Proper diet and exercise counseling were provided along 
with  medical  management. 
The  fact  that  he  had  a  medical 
condition requiring treatment did not, in and of  itself, render 
him  unfit  for  duty  nor  eligible  for  consideration  under  the 
provisions of AFI  36-3212  for disability evaluation.  The fact 
that he may have to continue medication for the rest of his life, 
again, while  unfortunate  at  the  late  stage of  his  career, was 
proper,  and  no  error  or  injustice  is  found  in  the  course  of 
events leading to his separation.  The BCMR Medical Consultant is 
of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted and the 
application should be denied. 
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 
The Chief, Physical Disability Division, AFPC/DPPD, also reviewed 
this  application  and  states  that  the  purpose  of  the  military 
disability  system  is  to  maintain  a  fit  and  vital  force  by 
separating members who are unable to perform the duties of their 
grade, office, rank  or  rating.  Members  who  are  separated or 
retired  for  reason of  physical  disability may  be  eligible, if 
otherwise  qualified,  for  certain  disability  compensations. 
Eligibility for disability processing is established by a Medical 
Evaluation Board  (MEB) when that board finds that the member may 

4 

97- 02695 

not be qualified for continued military service.  The decision to 
conduct  an  MEB  is  made  by  the  medical  treatment  facility 
providing care to the member.  They carefully reviewed the AFBCMR 
application and verified the applicant was never referred to or 
considered by  the Air  Force Disability Evaluation System under 
the provisions of AFI 36-3212.  A review of the applicant's case 
file revealed no mental or physical defects to show he was unfit 
for continued military  service due  to a physical  disability at 
the  time of  his  involuntary discharge.  The medical  aspects of 
this case are fully explained by the Medical Consultant and they 
agree  with  his  advisory. 
They  recommend  denial  of  the 
applicant's  request. 
The  applicant  has  not  submitted  any 
material  or  documentation  to  show that  he  was  unfit  due  to  a 
physical disability under the provisions of Title 10 USC  at the 
time  of  his  involuntary  administrative  discharge  from  active 
duty. 
A  complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. 
The  Chief, Retirements  Branch,  AFPC/DPPRR,  also  reviewed  this 
application and states they recommend disapproval of applicant's 
request  for  a  Temporary  Early  Retirement  Authority  (TERA) 
retirement.  The  TERA program  was  enacted  by  Congress and  the 
Secretary of Defense approved the use of some of the provisions 
to  retire  members  from  the  active  military. 
The  temporary 
legislation  is  a  force  shaping  drawdown  tool  and  not  an 
entitlement,  L e . ,   all  members  meeting  minimum  eligibility 
criteria  may  not  necessarily  apply.  The  legislation  clearly 
permits  each  service  to  target  segments  of  its  eligible 
population where  it  would  most  need  for losses to occur.  The 
enlisted  early  retirement  program  was  last  available  until 
30 October 1996, when the program closed.  Since this program has 
been  successful  over  the  fiscal  years  to  meet  enlisted  end 
strengths, it has not been necessary over recent fiscal years and 
it is not projected for Fiscal Year 1999 to offer the program to 
enlisted members. 
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states that 
he knew from the beginning that he did not have a chance of ever 
getting his application approved for two reasons: (1) black, and 
(2) 1.5 years away from retirement.  Anytime  the military gets 
over on an individual racially, it will  do just that no matter 
what proof or evidence you may have against any wrong doing.  You 
will never win because you hate to look bad.  But he will not let 
this minor  set back  upset  him.  He has  contacted the media  in 

5 

. 

97-02695 

hopes of having his story aired and speak of the wrong doings and 
how he feels that he was treated unfairly due to race.  You have 
a black noncommissioned officer  (NCO)  that has served 18.5 years 
of faithful duty contract hypothyroidism, gain an unusual amount 
of weight  in a 2-3 month time span, get some treatment, and is 
kicked out before having a chance to retire.  He has seen chief 
master  sergeants and  other white  NCOs  get  waivers  or  everyone 
just looked the other way in order for them to retire.  But the 
military as a whole has been and always will be a divided entity 
and  if you are a black male  in a position of authority you are 
looked at under a microscope.  They are waiting for a reason to 
get rid of you.  He does realize the final decision has not been 
made yet, but he is already aware of what the final outcome will 
be.  It is just a matter of formality. 

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is attached at 
Exhibit G .  

THE BOAR D CONCLUDES THAT: 
1.  The  applicant  has  exhausted  all  remedies  provided  by 
existing law or regulations. 
2.  The application was timely filed. 

Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
3 .  
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After 
reviewing  the  evidence  submitted  with  this  appeal, we  are  not 
persuaded  that  the  applicant  should  be  medically  retired  or 
retired  under  the  Temporary  Early  Retirement  Authority  (TERA) . 
The  Air  Force  states  the  purpose  of  the  military  disability 
system is to maintain a fit and vital force by separating members 
who are unable to perform the duties of their grade, office, rank 
or rating.  Members who are separated or retired for reason of 
physical disability may be eligible, if otherwise qualified, for 
certain  disability  compensations.  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  care  to  the 
member.  We  note  that  the  applicant  was  never  referred  to  or 
considered by  the Air  Force Disability Evaluation  System under 
the provisions of AFI 36-3212.  The Board is of the opinion that 
the applicant was informed he was overweight and that appropriate 
measures were taken.  He was offered Probation and Rehabilitation 
due to his lengthy service.  However, the applicant still failed 
to  reach  and  maintain  his  maximum  weight  and  body  fat 
measurements.  In  regard  to  the  applicant's  request  for  early 
retirement, we note that the applicant was not eligible, based on 
the  type  of  separation,  to  retire  under  the  TERA. 
The 
applicant's  contention that  he  was  treated unfairly  because  of 

b 

6 

a 

97-02695 

his race is not substantiated and the applicant has not provided 
any  evidence to  the  contrary. 
Therefore, in  the  absence  of 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

THE BOARD DETERMI NES 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 10 .November 1998,  under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603: 

Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair 
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member 
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member 
Ms. Gloria J. Williams, Examiner (without vote) 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Sept 98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 5 Jan 98. 
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 26 Jan 98. 
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPRR, dated 9 Apr 98. 
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Apr 98. 
Exhibit G. Applicant's Response, dated 25 Apr 98, w/atchs. 

CHARLENE M. BRADLEY  c/ 
Panel Chair 

7