AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  9 5 - 0 3 7 5 6  
COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 
He  be  reinstated  to  active  duty, or  if  this  is  not  possible  or 
feasible,  he  at  least  be  given  some  form  of  retirement 
compensation,  and  that  the  narrative  reason  for  discharge  be 
changed. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

He was  involuntarily discharged against  the  recommendation of  his 
discharge board when, in fact, he was within weight standards. 
His work performance and judgment were never affected by  the extra 
weight he had not realized he had gained. 

The  weight  and  body  fat  program  on  his  base  has  been  placed  in 
question.  No one can be sure whether he received fair treatment in 
his measurement and support from his squadron.  His weight file was 
incomplete,  his  measurements  were  never  kept  and  results  were 
gotten which did not seem logical. 
The discharge authority used  him  as  an  excuse  to  fulfill a  force 
reduction quota. 

In  support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  provided  his  personal 
statement.  He  also  provided  copies of  letters  submitted  to  the 
discharge  authority  from  the  president  and  two  members  of  the 
discharge board  recommending the  applicant be  given probation and 
rehabilitation, a copy of a letter from his wife to their member of 
Congress,  and  nine  letters of  character reference/recommendation. 
(Exhibit A) 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Applicant  contracted  his  initial  enlistment  in  the  Regular  Air 
Force on 1 June 1981 in the grade of airman first class  (E-3).  He 
served on continuous active duty and entered his last enlistment on 
25 May  1993.  Prior  to  the  events under  review, he  attained  the 
grade  of  staff  sergeant  (E-5).  The  record  contains  nine  APRs 

. 

reflecting overall evaluation ratings of 9, and six EPRs  reflecting 
promotion recommendation ratings of 4, 4, 3, 4, 3, and 4. 
On  26  June  1995,  the  squadron  commander  initiated  administrative 
discharge  action  against  the  applicant  for  failure  in  the  weight 
control  program.  The  basis  for  the  proposed  discharge  was  that 
applicant  failed  to  make  satisfactory  progress  on  the  Weight 
Management Program  (WMP)  on five occasions between 28 December 1993 
and  31  May  1995. 
These  failures  resulted  in  the  applicant 
receiving  a  letter  of  admonishment,  a  letter  of  reprimand,  two 
letters  of  reprimand  with  establishment  of  an  Unfavorable 
Information File  (UIF) and control roster actions, and a record of 
counseling. 

On  30  and  31  August  1995,  an  administrative  discharge  board 
convened  to  determine  whether  the  applicant  should  be  discharged 
due to exceeding body fat standards and thereby failing the weight 
control program.  After carefully considering all the evidence, the 
board  found that applicant did  fail to make  satisfactory progress 
on  the WMP,  on or  about  28  December  1993,  30  March  1994,  31  May 
1994,  15 August  1994 and 31 May 1995,  as reflected by AF Form 393. 
The  Board  recommended  applicant  be  separated  with  an  honorable 
discharge.  They  further  recommended he  be  offered  probation  and 
rehabilitation with a conditional suspension of the discharge. 

On  12 September  1995,  applicant's area  defense  counsel  submitted 
statements  from  the  president  and  two  members  of  the  discharge 
board,  and  the  applicant  and  his  wife,  for  consideration  by  the 
separation authority as to whether probation and rehabilitation was 
appropriate. 

On 17 September 1995,  the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the 
Record  of  Board  Proceedings  and  found  the  record  complete  and 
legally sufficient.  On 20 September 1995,  the discharge authority 
approved  an  honorable  discharge,  without 
and 
rehabilitation. 

probation 

Information  extracted  from  applicant's  service  medical  records 
reflects  the  following  weights  were  recorded  during  applicant's 
follow-up  visits  to  the  nutrition  clinic  subsequent  to  being 
notified of the discharge action: 

7 June 95, weighed 182, the same as previous visit. 
13  Jun  95,  weighed  183,  l o s t   two pounds.  Maximum  allowable 

weight  (MAW) was 172. 

30 Jun 95, weighed 182, lost one pound. 

7 Jul 95, weighed 182, weighed same as last visit. 
12 Jul 95, weighed 1801/f;, lost 1% pounds. 
21 Jul 95, weighed 181, gained %  pound. 

2 

28 Jul 95, weighed 179, lost two pounds. 

1 Aug  95, weighed  180, MAW  172; gained one pound  and lost 2% 

body fat. 

9 Aug 95, weighed 18l%,  gained 1% pounds. 
16 Aug 95, weighed 177%, body fat 23%; lost 2% pounds. 
22 Aug 95, weighed 182%, body fat 25%; gained 5 pounds and 2% 

body fat. 

28 Aug  95, weighed  177, body  fat  22%;  lost  5 pounds  and  3% 

body fat. 

12 Sep 95, weighed 176. 
19 Sep 95, weighed 176, remained the same as previous visit. 

Applicant  was  honorably  discharged  on  4  October  1995, under  the 
provisions  of  AFI  36-3208  (weight  control  failure). 
He  was 
credited  with  14  years,  4  months  and  4  days  of  active  Federal 
service. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Quality  Force  Programs  Branch,  AFPC/DPSFC3,  reviewed  this 
application  and  recommended  denial. 
DPSFC3  noted  that  the 
applicant  does  not  deny  that  his  unsatisfactory  periods  were 
inappropriate,  only  that  there  were  extenuating  circumstances. 
Commanders  may  consider  special  circumstances when  administering 
the  program,  however,  that  does  not  always  translate  into  more 
lenient administering of the WMP. 

DPSFC3  stated  that  when  the  applicant  was  placed  in  the  WMP  in 
September  1993, the requirement at  that  time  and  currently is to 
lose five pounds or one percent body fat per month for satisfactory 
progress.  Applicant's  body  fat  standard  was  24  percent. 
The 
applicant had  five total unsatisfactory periods:  Dec  93, Mar  94, 
May  94,  Aug  94  and  May  95. 
He  received  an  authorized 
administrative action for each unsatisfactory period.  Although AFR 
35-11, The Air Force Weight Program, dated 5 February 1991, changed 
to  AF  Instruction  40-502,  effective  31  August  1994,  the 
requirements for weight and body fat loss imposed on the member did 
not  change.  There  was  an  interim  message  change  to AFR  35-11, 
effective 30 June 1993, and it changed the weight loss requirement 
from a two percent body  fat loss per month to one percent  or five 
pounds.  The applicant entered the program in September 1993 under 
the new requirement.  The WMP was administered appropriately in the 
applicant I  s case.  (Exhibit C) 

3 

f58375L 

. 

The Programs and Procedures Branch, AFPC/DPPRP, reviewed this case 
for  separation processing  and  found  no  errors  or  irregularities 
causing an injustice to the applicant.  The discharge complies with 
directives  in effect  at  the  time  of  his  discharge.  The  records 
indicate applicant's military service was reviewed and appropriate 
action  was  taken. 
Accordingly,  DPPRP  recommended  applicant's 
request for reinstatement be denied.  (Exhibit D) 
The  Programs and  Procedures Branch, AFPC/DPPRP,  provided  comments 
addressing  applicant's  alternate  request  for  some  form  of 
retirement compensation.  DPPRP recommended his request be denied, 
stating the applicant did not and does not meet the provisions for 
a regular service retirement  -  that is, must have served 20 years 
of  active federal military service.  Further, he does not and did 
not  meet  the  basic  criteria  in  law  for  a  retirement  under  the 
Temporary  Early  Retirement  Authority  (TERA) . 
It  would  be 
inappropriate to allow the applicant to receive retirement benefits 
without him having met retirement eligibility.  (Exhibit E) 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Applican 
judgment 
had not 
failure 
to gain 
routine 
person s 
that has 

.t reiterated  his  contentions  that  his  work  performance, 
and appearance were never affected by the extra weight he 
realized he had gained.  He had gone eight months without a 
when he failed in May 1995.  He had done nothing different 
weight or body  fat.  He was still following his exercise 
and  very  low  fat  diet. 
It  is  not  fair  to  destroy  a 
otherwise outstanding career because  of a weight program 
time and again been proven to be inconsistent and unfair. 

Applicant's response is at Exhibit G. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The  applicant has  exhausted all  remedies provided  by  existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 
2 .   The application was timely filed. 
3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate 
the existence of probable error or injustice.  After reviewing the 
evidence  of  record,  we  believe  that  the  recommendation  of  the 
In this 
respect, we note the president of the discharge board and two other 
members  felt  so  strongly  that  the  applicant  should  be  offered 
probation and  rehabilitation that  they wrote  statements on behalf 
of the applicant.  In addition, applicant appears to have followed 
the Weight Management Program  (WMP)  'procedures and at one time had 
gone eight months without a failure.  Applicant's  overall record of 
performance does  not appear  to have been  affected and  in view  of 

?  administration discharge board should have been approved. 

4 

the statements submitted and his 14 years of service, we  find the 
denial in providing the applicant one more opportunity to complete 
his  career was unduly harsh.  Therefore, we  recommend his records 
be corrected to the extent indicated below. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent military  records of  the Department of the Air  Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that: 

a.  He was not discharged on 4 October 1995, but on that date he 
was  continued  on  active duty  and  was  ordered  Permanent Change of 
Station  (PCS) to  his  home  of  record  (home of  selection) pending 
further orders. 

b.  Upon his return to active duty he be enrolled into the Weight 

Management Program. 

c.  An AF Form 77, Supplemental Evaluation Sheet, be prepared and 
inserted in the  record  in  its proper  sequence indicating that no 
performance report is available for the period when member was not 
serving on  active duty  and  containing  the  statement, "Report for 
this period not available for administrative reasons which were not 
the fault of the member." 

The following members of  the Board  considered this application in 
Executive Session on 13 March 1997, under the provisions of AFI 36- 
2 6 0 3 :  

Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair 
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member 
Mr. Gary Appleton, Member 

All  members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 December 1995, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSFC3, dated 12 April 1996. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRP, dated 23 April 1996. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRP, dated 6  May 1996, w/atch. 
Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 20 May 1996. 
Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 June 1996. 

5