AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET  NUMBER:  97-03133 
COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 
That  his  grade  of  senior  airman  ( E - 4 ) ,   at  the  time  of  his 
discharge, be  restored  to  his  former  grade  of  staff  sergeant 
(E-5). 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

After  serving his  country for ten years, having gone  above and 
beyond his regular duties and performing above his peers, he was 
flagged as having a weight  problem and he  was  reduced in grade 
from  staff  sergeant  to  senior airman  seven days  before  he  was 
discharged.  Applicant states that it is criminal to discriminate 
against  someone  because  of  their  weight  anywhere  but  the 
military.  When he  separated, he was  given separation pay which 
would  be  repaid with  any  disability benefits  he  would  possibly 
receive.  If this correction were made retroactive to the date of 
separation, that separation pay should be almost paid off and he 
can start receiving the disability benefits sooner. 
In support of his appeal, applicant submits a copy of a letter he 
forwarded to his congressman's office. 

Applicant's submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air Force on 27 July 1987 for 
a period of 5 years in the grade of staff sergeant  ( E - 5 ) .  
Available records reflect that on 31 January 1989 the applicant 
was  referred  for medical  evaluation  for possible  enrollment  in 
the  Weight  Management  Program  (WMP) . 
His  maximum  allowable 
weight  (MAW) was  203  %  pounds  and  the  applicant  weighed  225 
pounds.  He  was  entered  into  Phase  I of  the  Weight  Management 
Program  (WMP) on  21 February  1989.  Applicant  continued  in t h e  
WMP  and on 19 October 1990, he  received a Letter of  Counseling 
for being  29  %  pounds  over his MAW.  He  subsequently received 

. 

four Letters of Reprimand  (LOR).  An  LOR on 18 January 1991 for 
being 4 0   %  pounds over his MAW; LOR on 8  February 1991 for 3 7  
pounds over his MAW; LOR  19 Jul  9 1   for a weight  of  225 pounds; 
and, LOR  on 1 7   January 1992 for a weight of  223 %  pounds.  The 
latest LOR was applicant's second unsatisfactory weigh-in since 
the start of the new WMP.  An  Unfavorable Information File  (UIF) 
was  established and  applicant was placed  on the  Control Roster 
twice. 

Applicant,  while  in  the  WMP, 
reenlistment on 26 November 1991. 

was  considered  and  denied 

On  24  April  1992,  applicant's commander  notified  him  of  his 
intent to recommend to the demotion authority that he  (applicant) 
The  applicant  non-concurred  with  the  proposed 
be  demoted. 
demotion action and submitted a letter, dated 29 April  1992, in 
his behalf.  Applicant consulted counsel and requested a personal 
hearing with his commander.  On 5 May 1992, the commander decided 
to continue processing the demotion action.  On 29 May 1992, the 
Wing Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the reasons for the proposed 
demotion  action  and  found  sufficient  evidence  existed  to 
administratively  demote  the  applicant. 
On  8  July  1992,  by 
Special Order A-1029, applicant was demoted from staff sergeant 
to senior airman with a date of rank and effective date of 7  July 
1992.  Applicant  appealed the  demotion action on .16 July  1992. 
His  appeal  was  denied  on  24  July  1992  by  the  Commander, 
Headquarters First Air Force. 

Applicant  was  honorably  discharged  on  26  July  1992  under  the 
provisions of AFR 39-10  (Expiration Term of Service) in the grade 
of  senior  airman.  He  served  10  years  and  1  day  of  active 
military service. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Acting  Chief ,  Commander's Programs  Branch, HQ  AFPC/DPSFC, 
states  that  maintaining  Air  Force  weight  standards  is  an 
individual responsibility.  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  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.  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.  Commanders perform  random weigh-ins and  ensure all 
personnel  within  their  organization  are  weighed  or  body  fat 
measured  at  least  once  a  year,  In  addition, commanders  a r e  
required  to  perform  weight  or  body  fat  measurements, or  b o t h ,  

2 

during  changes  in  status  such  as  permanent  change  of 
station/permanent  change of assignment  (PCS/PCA) 
promotions and 
appointments, temporary duty  (TDY) and reenlistments.  AFPC/DPSFC 
is unable  to determine all  the  facts regarding the  applicant s 
progression in the WMP  due to the lack of a WMP case file.  They 
recommend the applicant's request be denied. 

/ 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 

I 

The  Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted  Promotion Branch, 
HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, states that it is their opinion that the demotion 
action taken against the applicant was procedurally correct and 
there  is no evidence  there were  any  irregularities or that  the 
case  was  mishandled. 
However,  should  the  Board  grant  the 
request, applicant will be entitled  to have his former grade of 
staff sergeant reinstated with a date of rank of 1 January 1987. 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Applicant states, in summary, that he  is not questioning whether 
the  Air  Force  had  the  authority  to  enact  the  demotion.  His 
confusion  is  the  fact  that  he  was  an  E-5  all  the  way  to  the 
seventh day before he departed the Air Force.  Applicant alleges 
that  his  sources  on  the  base  at  the  time  stated  that  the 
paperwork had come from group allowing him to exit the Air Force 
as  an  E-5  and  then  the  squadron  commander  came  back  from 
vacation, or whatever his reason for not being on base was, and 
reversed  the  decision.  Applicant  states  that  his  family  will 
suffer  from  a  negative  decision  because  of  the  difference  of 
income  between  E-5  and  E - 4   pay  for  a  10%  disability  for 
hypertension. 

A copy of the applicant's response is attached at Exhibit F. 

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 t h e  
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 
3 .   Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  t o  
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  A f t e r  
a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and  applicant's 
submission, we  are  not  persuaded  that  his  pay  grade  of  s t a f f  
sergeant,  prior  to  his  discharge,  should  be  restored. 
His 
contentions  are  duly  noted;  however,  we  do  not  find  these 

3 

assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  to 
override the rationale provided by  the Air Force.  The  evidence 
of  record reflects that  the  applicant was placed  on the.  Weight 
Management  Program  (WMP) in February  1989 and  was  continued  in 
the program  just  prior  to  discharge.  We  note  the  applicant's 
contention that he believes he was discriminated against by being 
reduced in grade  just prior  to his discharge.  However, by  the 
evidence  of  record,  it  appears  that  the  commander  followed 
regulations  by  taking  administrative  actions  to  encourage  the 
applicant  to  reduce  his  weight  and  finally,  it  was  the 
commander's  prerogative  to  initiate  demotion  action. 
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 or an injustice.  Therefore? we find no 
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought. 

4.  With  respect  to  the  applicant's concern  regarding  his  pay 
back of his separation bonus and his 10% disability payments? he 
should  contact  the  Defense  Finance  and  Accounting  Service 
(DFAS-DE), Denver, Colorado, and his local Department of Veterans 
Affairs. 

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 8 October 1998, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603. 

Ms. Charlene M .  Bradley, Panel Chair 
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member 
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

4 

. 

Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 

A. 
B. 
C. 
D. 
E. 
F. 

DD Form 149, dated 14 Oct 97, w/atchs. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records- 
- 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSFC, dated 22 Dec 97. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 8 Jan 98. 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 Jan 98. 
Applicant's Letter, dated 2 Oct 98, w/atch. 

~ 

CHARLENE M. BRADLEY  /? 7 

Panel Chair 

5