RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-01990

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be reinstated in the Air Force or given a medical retirement.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The disease of Polycystic  Ovarian  Syndrome  (PCOS)  was  developed  during
active duty service and prohibited her  compliance  with  Air  Force  weight
standards.

She states that her discharge was related to complications of  the  disease,
and conflict within Air Force Instructions.  The disease was not taken  into
consideration despite medical documentation and  testimonies  of  Air  Force
medical  providers.   The  disease  is  recognized  and  treated  worldwide;
however Air Force medical providers failed to provide her  relief  from  the
signs and symptoms of the disease which led to her failure  to  comply  with
Air Force weight standards.

In support of her appeal, applicant has provided a detailed statement,  with
9 attachments, surrounding the circumstances of her separation from the  Air
Force.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 May 1989, applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the  grade  of
Airman First Class.

The applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air Force on 8 September 1994 for  a
period of four years.



On 23 April 1996, the applicant’s body fat measured 33% and she  was  placed
on the Weight Management Program (WMP) with a body fat standard of  28%.  As
a result, her promotion to staff sergeant was withheld.

On 20 December 1996, the applicant’s body fat standard was adjusted to  32%,
she was placed in Phase II of the WMP and directed to participate in  a  90-
day exercise program.

On 21 January 1997, the applicant’s body fat measurement  was  31%  and  her
promotion  to  staff  sergeant  was  approved  with  an  effective  date  of
28 August 1996 and Date of Rank (DOR) of 1 April 1996.

On 5 April 1998, the applicant’s body fat measured 43%.

The applicant’s First Sergeant issued her a Letter of Counseling (LOC) on  6
April 1998.

On 8 September 1998, the applicant’s body fat measured 41%.

On 23 September 1998, the applicant received a  Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR)
for failing to maintain body fat standards.

A Records Review Report on Individual Personnel (RIP), dated  7 April  1999,
indicates that applicant’s Promotion Eligibility Status Effective  Date  was
September  1998  and  her  promotion  eligibility  status  was  eligible   -
participating in WMP.

On 19 April 1999, the applicant’s  request  for  a  13-month  extension  was
denied by her commander.

The applicant was honorably discharged on 7 May 1999, under  the  provisions
of AFI  36-3208  (Completion  of  Required  Active  Service)  and  issued  a
Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “4J” (Phase I WMP  or  Ineligible  for
Continued Phase II/Probation).  The applicant completed 10 years and 6  days
of active service and received $9,687.99 in separation pay.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The BCMR  Medical  Consultant  reviewed  the  application  and  states  that
applicant developed a rather common ovarian disorder that  affects  some  5-
10% of women of childbearing age.  She received  appropriate  treatment  and
consultation over the  course  of  three  years  in  attempts  to  help  her
overcome the effects of the disease, but failed to respond to  these  or  to
her own efforts to maintain standards.  As shown through much of  1996,  she
was able to reach and maintain such  standards,  but  thereafter  failed  in
those efforts.  Her disease does not  present  barriers  to  performance  of
satisfactory service, thereby falling  outside  the  realm  of  diseases  or
conditions that would warrant evaluation through the  disability  evaluation
system.  While PCOS may provide a potential mechanism  for  inducing  weight
gain, women with the disease  still  retain  some  ability  to  avoid  these
circumstances.  Therefore, favorable consideration of  her  request  is  not
recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The  Chief,  Special  Actions/BCMR  Advisories,  AFPC/DPPD,   reviewed   the
application  and  states  that  a  medical  assessment  of  the   applicant,
completed prior to her discharge does not  reflect  any  medical  conditions
that would have warranted presenting  her  to  a  Medical  Evaluation  Board
(MEB).   In  addition,  the  medical  assessment  indicates  the   applicant
referred to her  overall  medical  condition  as  “good.”   The  applicant’s
records contain performance reports in which her supervisor  refers  to  her
as “My best NCO,”  and  highly  recommended  her  for  immediate  promotion.
While the applicant was treated for various  medical  conditions  throughout
her military career,  none  were  severe  enough  to  warrant  that  she  be
presented before an MEB or Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  The  fact  that
a person may have a medical condition does not necessarily mean that  he  or
she is unfitting for continued military service.  Therefore, they  recommend
denial of the application.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

The Separations Branch, AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed  the  application  and  states
that applicant was  discharged  because  she  had  completed  her  obligated
required extended active service.  The  applicant  has  not  identified  any
specific errors in the separation processing nor provided  facts  warranting
her reinstatement to active duty.  Therefore, they  recommend  her  requests
be denied.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant reviewed the evaluations and states that not only  is  PCOS  a
condition that frequently is associated with  weight  increases  along  with
skin and hair changes and other endocrine disturbances, but  it  is  also  a
disease caused by insulin resistance to  hypoglycemic  actions  of  insulin.
Contrary to the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant’s  belief,  the  only  Air  Force
treatment she received was the prescription of birth control pills. She  was
not diagnosed with PCOS until she was  seen  by  a  civilian  physician  who
began a treatment of Phen/Fen and chromium  injections.   The  99th  Medical
Group physicians and nurses had no idea why her  body  was  out  of  control
until she requested to be tested for the disease.

In regard to her being able to maintain her weight standards, the  applicant
states that she did so through extreme physical work-outs,  taking  Phen/Fen
and chromium injections, going  on  the  Atkin’s  New  Diet  Revolution  low
carbohydrate diet, and her sheer determination to  show  everyone  that  she
could do it.  She believes this reeked havoc  on  her  body,  as  the  yo-yo
effect rebounded her weight.  The BCMR Medical Consultant  states  that  she
received appropriate treatment but failed to respond; however,  the  disease
did not appear during this time frame.  She has been  insulin  resistant  (a
condition for which she was not tested and a sign of PCOS),  for  who  knows
how long.  Had she  been  found  insulin  resistant  and  treated  during  a
physical health exam, annual pelvic exam, or WMP physical, she would not  be
where she is today.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit G.

________________________________________________________________

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.   We  took  notice   of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;  however,
we find insufficient evidence that she  was  unfit  for  continued  military
service at the time  of  her  separation.   Therefore,  we  agree  with  the
opinions and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their  rationale  as
the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the  victim  of
an error or injustice.  In  view  of  the  above,  and  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis 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 issue(s) 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 30 January 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                  Mr. Frederick R. Beaman, III, Member
                  Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Jul 00, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 13 Sep 00.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 17 Oct 00.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 18 Oct 00.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 3 Nov 00.
      Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Nov 00.




             THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                  Vice Chair