RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02129
INDEX CODE 131.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His promotion eligibility be reinstated for promotion cycle 97E7
(master sergeant (E-7)).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His test for E-7 for the 97E7 cycle should be scored since he is now
meeting the Air Force body fat standards. He has a letter from his
doctor stating that his misdiagnosed condition, as well as the
medication, contributed to his one-time failure.
Airmen or the airmen’s commander may request promotion eligibility
reinstatement and several requests have been approved by HQ
AFMPC/DPMAJW (the approving section) in the past based solely on a one-
time failure on the Weight Management Program (WMP). He feels that
his case is stronger and deserving the same equal opportunity afforded
to other members.
In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement
and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his
contentions. These documents are appended at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
that the applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular
Air Force on 16 March 1981. He has been progressively promoted to the
grade of technical sergeant (E-6), with an effective date and date of
rank of 1 March 1993.
Applicant's profile for the last 9 reporting periods follows:
Period Ending Evaluation
7 Jul 92 4 - Ready for Promotion
14 Jan 93 4
14 Jan 94 5 - Immediate Promotion
14 Jan 95 5
10 Dec 95 5
30 Jun 96 5
13 Jun 97 5
14 Dec 97 4 - Ready for Promotion
The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the
letters prepared by the appropriate Air Force offices. Accordingly,
there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Commanders’ Programs Branch, HQ AFPC/DPSFC, stated that the
applicant was enrolled in the Weight Management Program (WMP) on 27
Sep 96 and issued a Letter of Admonishment on 10 Apr 97 for his first
and only unsatisfactory progress in the WMP. Members are rendered
ineligible to assume a higher grade upon an unsatisfactory progress in
the WMP. A member or commander can request promotion reinstatement
when the member meets the Air Force body fat standards and is enrolled
in Phase II of the WMP. No additional justification is required. The
applicant met the Air Force body fat standards on 10 Jun 97 and was
placed in Phase II of the WMP. The HQ AFPC Promotions Branch is the
final approval authority for promotion reinstatements; however, as in
this case, the request may be disapproved by the installation
commander.
DPSFC recommended the applicant’s request be approved. DPSFC stated
that upon reviewing the applicant’s request for reinstatement and the
staff package submitted to the installation commander for promotion
reinstatement, it is apparent they were not familiar with the criteria
for a member or commander to request promotion reinstatement. The
guidance concerning the commander requesting promotion reinstatement
when the member meets Air Force body standards and is enrolled in
Phase II of the WMP was not relayed to the installation commander.
Instead, they indicated the applicant’s weight gain and unsatisfactory
progress in the WMP was a direct result of not being able to properly
exercise due to an undiagnosed asthma condition and should not have
been counted as an unsatisfactory progress.
A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C.
The Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB,
stated promotion ineligibility, because of weight, is the same as all
other ineligibility conditions outlined in AFI 36-2502. If, on or
after the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for the respective
cycle, a member is in one of these conditions, he is ineligible for
the entire cycle. This means (as specified in the AFPC/DPMA 091602Z
Jun 95 message) a member cannot test, cannot be considered if already
tested, and cancellation of projected promotion if already selected.
DPPPWB stated the applicant tested 21 Feb 97 for promotion cycle 97E7
to master sergeant (promotions effective Aug 97 - Jul 98) and the PECD
for this cycle was 31 Dec 96. Before his test could be scored, he was
issued a Letter of Admonishment on 10 Apr 97 for unsatisfactory
progress in the WMP. The applicant’s record was updated, which
rendered him ineligible for promotion. On 12 May 98, the applicant
requested promotion eligibility reinstatement for cycle 97E7, which
was disapproved by the wing commander and discontinued further
processing of the case.
DPPPWB indicated that the applicant’s final score on the Promotion
Fitness Examination (PFE) was 50. His Specialty Knowledge Test (SKT)
score was 68.00. His total score (if he had been eligible and
considered) would have been 317.23 and the score required for
selection in his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 338.11. As a
result, reinstatement of his promotion eligibility for the 97E7 cycle
is moot as he would not have been selected if considered. Based on
the rationale provided, DPPPWB recommended the request be denied
(Exhibit D).
Pursuant to the Board’s request, DPPPWB provided an unofficial copy of
the applicant’s Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) scores for the
97E7 cycle (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on
7 September 1998 for review and response. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office (Exhibit F).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law
or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error. While we agree the applicant was the
victim of an injustice by unfairly being denied promotion
consideration for cycle 97E7, we note that even had he been
considered, he would not have been selected based on his Weighted
Airman Promotion System (WAPS) scores. Therefore, reinstating the
applicant’s promotion eligibility for the 97E7 cycle would be moot
since he would not have been a selectee. In view of the foregoing, no
basis exists to favorably act on this application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 March 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
Mr. Roger E. Willmeth, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Jul 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSFC, dated 19 Aug 98.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 24 Aug 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) scores.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 7 Sep 98.
BARBARA A. WESTGATE
Panel Chair
He was recommended for discharge on 29 May 1996, and recommended for administrative demotion on 6 June 1996. The applicant had five unsatisfactory periods while in the WMP, receiving three LORs, two referral EPRs, and a recommendation for discharge before he began to comply with Air Force standards. Therefore, we recommend his records be corrected as indicated below.
Promotion eligibility is regained only after receiving an EPR with an overall rating of “3” or higher that is not a referral report, and closes out on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for the next cycle. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. The Chief, Performance Evaluations Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, also reviewed the appeal and notes the Medical Consultant’s review of the applicant’s medical condition. A complete copy of the evaluation...
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). 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 originally rejected for...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2001-01974
The applicant contends that his hypothyroidism caused him to gain weight while on active duty which resulted in his demotion. While his failure to maintain Air Force weight standards was the basis for his demotion, records indicate new weight baselines were frequently established and only after repeated failures did the commander initiate demotion action. Exhibit B.
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, states that the applicant was demoted from staff sergeant to senior airman effective and with a date of rank of 3 June 1994 in accordance with AFR 39-30 for failure to maintain weight within Air Force standards. A copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit E. The Chief, Retirements Branch, HQ...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-03414
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, states that the applicant was demoted from staff sergeant to senior airman effective and with a date of rank of 3 June 1994 in accordance with AFR 39-30 for failure to maintain weight within Air Force standards. A copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit E. The Chief, Retirements Branch, HQ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01988
_________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His former rank should be reinstated because his demotion was solely based on his alleged failures in the Weight and Body Fat Measurement Program (WBFMP) and his medical history clearly demonstrates that his medical condition inhibited his ability to control his weight and successfully complete the WBFMP. He received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for his second failure on 5 November 1999, which was...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01248
In his proposed AFI 36-2401 appeal, applicant contends that his key duties, task and responsibilities were inaccurate; he should not have been rated by another staff sergeant; the statements by the evaluators are incorrect; and his supervision should not have allowed the unsubstantiated and badly written EPR to be entered in his permanent record. In support of his appeal, applicant provided a copy of Summary Report of Investigation, with his rebuttal comments; a proposed appeal package for...
In his proposed AFI 36-2401 appeal, applicant contends that his key duties, task and responsibilities were inaccurate; he should not have been rated by another staff sergeant; the statements by the evaluators are incorrect; and his supervision should not have allowed the unsubstantiated and badly written EPR to be entered in his permanent record. In support of his appeal, applicant provided a copy of Summary Report of Investigation, with his rebuttal comments; a proposed appeal package for...
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. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Acting Chief , Commander's Programs Branch, HQ AFPC/DPSFC, states that maintaining Air Force weight standards is an individual responsibility. 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...