RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03414
                 INDEX CODE:  131,136

                 COUNSEL:  WILLIAM L. ENYART

                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His demotion from the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) to  the  grade
of senior airman (E-4), effective 3 June 1994, be vacated and, that he
be restored to the grade of staff sergeant.

2.  He be allowed to retire  with  a  15  year  retirement  under  the
provisions of the Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA), or;  in
the alternative:

3.  His grade of staff sergeant be restored and he  be  reinstated  to
active duty in the U. S. Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He suffers from thyroid dysfunction which dates back to 1993 and which
caused his weight gain and fatigue.  Applicant states  that  the  sole
reason for his reduction in grade, and subsequent discharge,  was  due
to his inability to meet  the  Air  Force  weight  management  program
(WMP).  With the proper diagnosis, medical treatment  and  medication,
his thyroid condition has been  corrected  and  enables  him  to  meet
weight standards.  The  medical  records  clearly  indicate  that  his
thyroid condition was initially shown in laboratory tests as early  as
1993.

Applicant's submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant initially enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  on  19 January
1981 for a period of four (4) years in the grade of airman (E-2).

The applicant’s Airman/Enlisted Performance Reports (APR/EPRs) reflect
that he  received  noncommissioned  officer  (NCO)  status  (sergeant)
sometime between December 1983 and December 1984.

A review of the medical records reflects that the applicant was placed
on the Weight Management Program initially  in  September  1986.   The
APR, for  the  period  27  November  1986  through  26 November  1987,
reflects that the applicant failed to make  satisfactory  progress  in
the WMP and after four weight checks was reduced  in  rank  to  senior
airman (vacation of NCO status).

An AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment/Noncommissioned Officer  Status
Consideration, dated 24 August 1988, reflects that  applicant  was  on
Phase 7 of the WMP and only  needed  to  weigh-in  semi-annually.   He
maintained his weight well below standards for the past 8  months  and
also was performing satisfactory in all assigned tasks.  The APR,  for
the period 23 Jul 88 through 22 July  1989  reflects  applicant’s  NCO
status was reinstated (sergeant).  He was subsequently promoted to the
grade of staff sergeant effective 1 August 1991.

Applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 August 1991  for  a
period of six (6) years in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5).

Medical records reflect that thyroid testing was performed as early as
May 1985  when  the  first  of  many  low-normal  values  for  thyroid
stimulating hormone (TSH) was noted, with otherwise relatively  normal
hormone levels being  detected.   Applicant’s  measured  weights  over
several years shows a range from  168  to  192  pounds  and  body  fat
measurements from 20-27 percent.

Applicant was entered in the WMP on 4 November 1991 at 26%  body  fat.
This was 2% over the standard body fat standard for his age group.  He
failed to lose the required 5 pounds or 1% body fat on  four  separate
occasions  resulting   in   the   commander   taking   the   following
administrative actions:  (1)  2 December  1991,  Letter  of  Reprimand
(LOR); (2)  6 January 1992, LOR, Control  Roster  and  an  Unfavorable
Information File (UIF); (3)  24 May 1993,  LOR,  Control  Roster,  and
UIF;  (4)  24 March 1994, LOR, Control Roster, UIF, and Demotion.

On 5 May 1994, the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent to
recommend to the demotion authority that he  (applicant)  be  demoted.
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification, indicated he  non-
concurred, did not submit documentation on  his  behalf,  requested  a
personal hearing and that he had not  yet  consulted  counsel.   After
considering  the  information  presented,  the  commander  still  felt
demotion was appropriate.   The  demotion  action  was  found  legally
sufficient and applicant was reduced to senior  airman.   He  appealed
the demotion on 15 June 1994 which was subsequently denied.

Due to the applicant having an established High Year Tenure (HYT) date
(10 years total  active  federal  military  service  (TAFMS),  he  was
honorably released from active duty  on  10 December  1995  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Reduction In Force) and transferred to  the
Air Force Reserve.  He served 14 years,  10  months  and  22  days  of
active duty.  Applicant served 9 months 11 days, of which 3 months and
9 days was active service in the U. S. Army.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, Medical  Advisor  SAF  Personnel
Council, states that after a  complete  and  thorough  review  of  all
medical records  the  applicant  was  first  entered  on  the  WMP  in
September 1986.   A  year  later,  when  he  was  continuing  to  have
difficulty meeting his weight limits, he stated to an examiner that he
had had weight  problems  since  the  age  of  eleven.   In  spite  of
applicant’s contention that his thyroid  was  the  cause  of  his  WMP
failure, weight and body fat measurements indicate he was  capable  of
reaching acceptable standards and simply failed to maintain them  once
reached.

A thorough endocrinological work-up in the  fall  of  1993  failed  to
reveal any underlying condition that would cause the applicant to gain
weight.  A trained endocrinologist felt applicant’s  persistently  low
TSHs were an indication of underlying sub-clinical hyperthyroidism,  a
condition that would not lead to overweight problems.  Hypothyroidism,
on the other hand, is a well-known cause of such problems.  A  further
endocrine evaluation performed after  the  applicant  applied  to  the
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) in  the  summer  of  1996  showed
essentially the same thyroid function tests as previously noted.   The
letter written in support of the applicant’s appeal states erroneously
that these tests showed “persistently low values for both thyroxin and
TSH,” a statement not borne out by records review as seen in a totally
normal free-thyroxin value noted in a test collected on 25 August 1993
and a normal total T3 found on 13 October 1993.  The newer  evaluation
labeled the problem as secondary hypothyroidism based  on  a  specific
pituitary gland malfunction in the production of  TSH  with  no  other
pituitary gland abnormality found.  It is of note that a DVA  examiner
in August 1996 stated that “TSH  (is)  not  a  reliable  indicator  of
thyroid function.”

Nothing found in the  medical  records  indicates  a  misdiagnosis  or
defective treatment of a thyroid disorder that would have led  to  the
applicant failing to reach and maintain weight standards.   Laboratory
testing performed in the military over some 10 years between 1985  and
1995 showed a persistently low TSH, which is not a reliable  indicator
of thyroid function.  Medical  evaluations  and  recommendations  were
proper during the applicant’s military years and  reflect  appropriate
treatment of the individual.  No error or injustice is  found  in  the
record that would warrant a  change  in  his  discharge  reason.   The
Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied.

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

The Chief, Commander’s Programs Branch, HQ AFPC/DPSFC, states that the
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
Air Force body fat standards 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 make  every  effort
to assist individuals in their quest to maintain their weight and body
fat standards.  It is never an easy decision for  commanders  to  take
administrative action against a member and is  only  done  as  a  last
recourse.

The applicant’s statement that the Air Force failed to follow the  WMP
regulation in reducing him in grade is unfounded.  The guidance stated
in the WMP instruction reflects  commanders  can  take  administrative
demotion action on the third unsatisfactory  progress  and  separation
action on the fourth.  A letter signed by SSgt A---, dated 11 Sep  95,
stated on one of  the  member’s  body  fat  measurements  administered
sometime in May-Jul 94, and witnessed by a TSgt G---,  that  the  body
fat measurement around the abdomen may have been taken improperly, but
nothing was said at the time.  This measurement was after  his  fourth
unsatisfactory progress and would  not  change  any  of  the  previous
administrative actions.  They recommend the application be denied.

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.   The  applicant  claims  that  in
appealing his demotion, his commander added  new  information  to  the
original demotion package without  his  knowledge  or  opportunity  to
respond to it in violation of the regulation.  However, this cannot be
verified  based  on  the  documentation   presented.    Administrative
demotion action had also  been  initiated  against  the  applicant  on
3 September 1993.  Because he was  in  a  temporary  medical  deferral
status from 24 August 1993  to  20  January  1994  pending  a  medical
evaluation, he was not demoted at  that  time.   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.  They recommend the applicant’s requests be denied.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment,  is  attached  at
Exhibit E.

The Chief, Retirements Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRR, states that due to prior
active Army service, applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service
Date (TAFMSD) is 10 October 1980.  At the time of separation from  the
Air Force, 10 December 1995, the applicant had 15 years and  2  months
of Total Active Federal Military Service (TAFMS).   The  guidance  for
the Fiscal Year 1996 (FY96) Temporary Early Retirement Program  (TERA)
were MPFL 95-26, FY96 Voluntary Early  Retirement  Program,  dated  19
April 1995 and MPFM 95-65, FY96 Voluntary  Early  Retirement  Program,
Phase I and Phase II, dated 18 October 1995.

In accordance with the above guidance, the  eligibility  criteria  for
enlisted members was for master sergeant and below with a TAFMSD of 30
September 1978 or earlier.  Requested retirement had to be no  earlier
than 1 October 1995 and no later than 1 January 1996.  Members had  to
have served a minimum of 17 years of service but less than  20  as  of
the requested retirement date.

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  draw
down tool and not an entitlement, i.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.   Even  if
applicant had wanted to take TERA in 1995, he was not eligible for the
program.  The Air Force was targeting  members  with  17-19  years  of
service.  Applicant only had 15 years of total service at the time  of
separation.

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

The Military Personnel Management Specialist, Programs and  Procedures
Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, states that every enlisted member is assigned a
High Year Tenure (HYT) date  when  they  reach  three  years  time  in
service.  The established HYT date is the year and month an individual
reaches 10 years of TAFMS.  E-4s are separated upon reaching 10  years
TAFMS without progressing  to  the  next  higher  grade.   Applicant’s
TAFMSD was 10 October 1980,  therefore  his  HYT  was  established  as
December 1995 due to his reduction to senior airman  and  having  less
than 16 years TAFMS.

There are no errors or irregularities  causing  an  injustice  to  the
applicant with regard  to  the  separation  processing.   The  records
indicate applicant’s military service  was  reviewed  and  appropriate
action was taken.  They recommend denial of applicant’s requests.

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

The  Senior  Attorney-Advisor,  HQ  AFPC/JA,  states  that   applicant
questions whether he was properly  placed  in  the  required  exercise
program when he was placed in the WMP.  HQ AFPC/JA  believes  he  was.
The records submitted by the applicant (AF  Form  108s)  all  indicate
that applicant’s commander placed him in a 90-day exercise program and
appropriately continued him in that  program.   The  applicant  freely
admits that he was in the MICROFIT program, and that  program  appears
to be a self-paced aerobic exercise program.  The commander appears to
have substantially complied with the mandated exercise program.

HQ AFPC/JA is unable to find any error in applicant’s medical records.
 Even with the most  current  medical  records  provided,  it  is  the
opinion of the BCMR Medical Consultant  that  applicant  suffers  from
hyperthyrodism,  the  Air  Force’s   original   diagnosis,   and   not
hypothyroidism.  Additionally, because the medical  consultant  stated
that the DVA’s diagnosis was “a possibility” HQ AFPC/JA  consulted  HQ
AFPC/DPAMM (Medical Standards Branch).  That office indicated that the
original diagnosis was correct at the time made and appears to be  the
best medical diagnosis  even  at  this  time,  that  the  current  DVA
diagnosis was highly unlikely,  and  that  even  if  the  current  DVA
diagnosis is correct, the test supporting that conclusion indicates at
most,  hypothyroidism  insufficient  in   severity,   to   cause   any
significant difficulty  in  weight  loss.   Applicant  has  failed  to
factually establish either an error in the processing of his case or a
misdiagnosis of his thyroid condition at the time  he  was  on  active
duty.  They recommend the application be denied.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the  applicant’s
counsel on 26 May 1998 for review and response.  This office  received
counsel’s response on 24 July 1998 and counsel states, in summary, the
opinion of a treating and examining physician should be given  greater
weight of evidence than that of a consultative physician who has never
examined the patient and has merely examined his medical records.  The
BCMR Medical Consultant disregards the DVA diagnosis, and  applicant’s
statement, in favor of the earlier misdiagnosis by Air  Force  doctors
and that the applicant does, in fact, and has had  a  thyroid  problem
for many years.

A copy of counsel’s response is attached at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

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 or injustice.  After a thorough review
of the evidence of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that his demotion from the grade of staff sergeant should be
vacated and his grade be restored and that he  be  allowed  to  retire
under the provisions  of  the  Temporary  Early  Retirement  Authority
(TERA), or; in the alternative, that his grade of  staff  sergeant  be
restored and he be reinstated to active  duty.   His  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  or  an  injustice.
Therefore, 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 25 March 1999, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603.

                  Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Mike Novel, Member
                  Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Jun 97, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 13 Jan 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSFC, dated 17 Feb 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 19 Feb 98.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRR, dated 26 Mar 98.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Apr 98.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 19 May 98.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 May 98.
   Exhibit J.  Counsel’s Brief, undated.

                                CATHLYNN B. SPARKS
                                   Panel Chair