RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-01283
            INDEX CODE:  110.03

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be granted a waiver to be placed back on active duty to reenlist.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was denied an extension in order to complete the weight management
program (WMP).

Her appeal was handled improperly because it was not forwarded to  the
wing commander for a final determination.

She only received three failures in  the  WMP  and  three  letters  of
counseling.

In  support  of  her  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  an   expanded
statement, a supportive statement,  and  extracts  from  her  military
personnel records.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was honorably discharged on 16 May 96 under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-3208 (Completion  of  Required  Active  Service).   She  was
credited with 11 years, 2 months, and 14 days of active duty service.

Available documentation indicates that the applicant entered  Phase  I
of the WMP on 14 Feb 95.  Because she was in Phase I of the  WMP,  she
was ineligible to reenlist.

On 3 Apr 96, the applicant  submitted  an  extension  request  to  her
current enlistment to complete the WMP.  On 4 Apr  96,  her  commander
recommended  disapproval.   On  9  Apr  96,  the  approval   authority
(Military Personnel Flight (MPF) Commander) disapproved  her  request.
The applicant submitted an appeal.  On 8 May 96, the appeal  authority
(Support Group  Commander)  disapproved  the  applicant’s  request  to
extend her current enlistment.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Skills Management Branch, AFPC/DPPAE,  reviewed  this  application
and  recommended  denial.   According  to  DPPAE,  the  extension   of
enlistment processing chain is the unit commander, the MPF chief,  and
the support group commander.  The only reason the applicant’s  request
would have been forwarded to the wing commander for  final  resolution
is if the MPF chief disagreed with the unit commander,  which  is  not
the case in this situation.

A complete copy of  the  DPPAE  evaluation,  with  attachment,  is  at
Exhibit C.

The Field Activities Division, AFPC/DPSF,  reviewed  this  application
and recommended denial.  According to  DPSF,  the  applicant  was  not
discharged because of her failure in the WMP.  She was discharged upon
her date of separation because she was  denied  an  extension  to  her
enlistment.  The commander was well within his  purview  to  deny  the
extension request because there are no mandates to retain a member  in
order to complete the WMP.  This is solely the commander’s option.

A complete copy of the DPSF evaluation is at Exhibit D.

The Separations Branch,  AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed  this  application  and
recommended denial.  A complete copy of the  DPPRS  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and furnished  responses  and
additional documentary evidence which are attached at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant  to  the  Board’s  request,  the  Skills  Management  Branch,
AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed the applicant’s rebuttal responses and  addressed
the issues concerning the date of the referenced  directive  in  their
previous advisory and whether the applicant’s  extension  denial  case
should have been processed to  wing  commander  as  the  final  appeal
authority.  DPPAE indicated that they agree the directive in effect at
the time of her extension appeal was AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in  the
United States Air Force, dated 1 Mar 96 versus the 26 Aug 94  edition.
Nonetheless, the policy outlined in the paragraph  pertaining  to  the
extension appeal process was the same in both versions.   It  required
the appeal case file to be processed through the unit commander, chief
of the military personnel flight, and the support group commander  for
airmen with less than 16 years of service.  According  to  DPPAE,  the
wing commander would have been  the  final  appeal  authority  in  the
applicant’s case only if her immediate commander was  also  the  group
commander who initially disapproved the extension request.  Since that
was not the case, the applicant’s appeal was processed  in  accordance
with Air Force policy and there was no evidence of error or injustice.

A complete copy of the DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit H.

The Separations Branch, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the applicant’s  rebuttal
responses  and  addressed  the  applicant’s   claim   that   she   was
involuntarily  separated.   According  to  DPPRS,  the  Department  of
Defense and Air Force instructions indicate an enlisted member who has
completed their required active service and  their  required  military
service obligation  (MSO)  will  be  discharged.   The  DD  Form  214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, is the  official
source document that records the reason for separation.  A  review  of
the applicant’s DD Form 214 reveals she was discharged because she had
completed her  required  active  service  and  her  required  military
service obligation.  DPPRS recommended denial of the appeal.

A complete copy of the DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit I.

The Field Operations  Branch,  AFPC/DPSFM,  reviewed  the  applicant’s
rebuttal responses and addressed  her  allegation  that  a  documented
weight check was not hers.  DPSFM indicated that if the  weigh-in  was
invalid, it did not appear that the applicant addressed  its  validity
when she was given a letter of reprimand (LOR).

According to DPSFM, the applicant’s  commander  was  well  within  his
authority by not allowing the member to extend to  complete  the  WMP.
The policy to allow an extension in  order  to  complete  the  WMP  is
strictly  a  commander’s  option.   After  reviewing  the   additional
documentation submitted by the applicant, they find it very  difficult
to believe her allegation she was on her cycle for  three  consecutive
weight checks  without  any  medical  documentation  to  support  this
irregularity.   They  believe  that  the  unit  was  above  board   by
documenting and  deleting  the  previous  two  weight  checks.   DPSFM
indicated that  they  do  not  support  the  applicant’s  request  and
recommends that the appeal be disapproved.

A complete copy of the DPSFM evaluation is at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a response which
is attached at Exhibit L.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   The  applicant's
complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and her  contentions  were
duly noted.  However, we do not find the  applicant’s  assertions  and
the documentation presented in  support  of  her  appeal  sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices
of primary  responsibility  (OPRs).   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence that the applicant's substantial rights were  violated,  that
the information used as a basis for the denial of the extension of her
current enlistment was erroneous,  or  that  there  was  an  abuse  of
discretionary authority, we adopt the Air Force rationale and conclude
that no basis exists to recommend granting the relief sought  in  this
application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of   the   issues   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 9 Nov 00, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. George Franklin, Member
      Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 May 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 22 Sep 99, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSF, dated 4 Oct 99.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 18 Jan 00.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 11 Feb 00.
    Exhibit G.  Letters, applicant, undated, w/atchs.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 4 Aug 00.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Aug 00.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, AFPC/DPSFM, dated 4 Sep 00.
    Exhibit K.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 29 Sep 00.
    Exhibit L.  Letter, applicant, undated.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair