RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00857
            INDEX CODE:  111.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1. Her Officer Performance Report rendered for  the  period  4 January  1992
through 3 January 1993 be amended as follows:

        Section V, Line 3:  Change  the  Professional  Qualities  Rating  to
MEETS STANDARDS.

       Section VI, Line 8:  Delete comment “--she is diligently  working  on
a weight control program”

        Section VI, Line 9:  Delete entire entry.

        Section VII, Line 1:  Delete entire entry.

2. Remove referral memorandum, dated  12  January  1993,  and  her  rebuttal
letter, dated 21 January 1993, from her records.

By amendment, applicant requested the following:

3. Her Officer Performance Report rendered for  the  period  4 January  1992
through 3 January 1993 be amended as follows:

       Section VI, Line 8:  Delete comment “--she is diligently  working  on
a weight control program”.   Add  comment  “--superb  planner  and  manager,
select for SOS in residence”.

       Section VI, Line 9:  Delete entire line.  Add  --Key  contributor  to
successful AFROTC Field Training camp--“great job”…“Well done!”

       Section VII, Line 1:  Delete entire  entry.   Add  comment  “--Strong
leadership/communication skills right out of the gate-resident SOS a must”.




By a  second  amendment,  the  applicant  indicates  that  if  her  original
requests (#1 and #2) are granted, she will  submit  an  application  to  the
Evaluation  Reports  Appeal  Board  (ERAB)  requesting  #3  be  granted   as
indicated above.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She received a referral report and referral  letter  by  entering  into  the
first unsatisfactory period of the weight  management  program  (WMP).   She
entered Phase 1 (Initial Entry and Body Fat  Loss  Period)  of  the  WMP  in
September  1992;  however,  the  referral  OPR  comment  on   unsatisfactory
progress (failure to lose 2 percent body fat each month)  was  included  due
to the change in measurements.  On 21 December 1992, she elected to  undergo
cosmetic surgery.   900ccs  or  approximately  3  pounds  of  body  fat  was
removed.  The surgery was prior to the closeout date of  the  referral  OPR.
As of 7 November 1992, she had lost 4% body fat in 2 months.   Her  rebuttal
letter accompanied the referral  OPR  for  review.   Despite  issues  raised
(i.e., unsatisfactory results occurred during  a  menstrual  cycle,  a  more
accurate “body fat scan” showed my body fat at  30.3%  circumference  method
showed 34%), the Physician’s Assistant used a “special number  to  calculate
the body fat scan result due to the mineral content of  her  bone  structure
as genetics of Hispanics and other minorities make it difficult  to  conform
to a circumferential measurement, etc.,  her  supervisor’s  rating  remained
unchanged.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement,  OPR,
closing 3 January 1993, referral letter,  dated  12 January  1993,  AF  Form
108,  Weight  Program  Processing,  dated   2 December   1992,   and   other
documentation.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the  grade  of
Captain.

The applicant’s Weight and Body Fat Management Program (WBFMP) file  is  not
available.

The  applicant’s  available  history  of  Individual   Record   for   Weight
Management  and  Fitness  Improvement  Training  Program  (Phase  I)  is  at
Exhibit A.

According to the WMP documents provided by the  applicant,  in  addition  to
the available records, the following information was obtained:

        After receiving diet counseling, a review  of  her  medical  records
indicates on 10 March 1992, she was seen for a weight evaluation.   She  was
64.5” tall, weighed 158 ¼ pounds, and her  maximum  allowable  weight  (MAW)
was 147.

        A 17 March 1992 medical evaluation indicated the  applicant  weighed
162 pounds and her MAW was 147.

        A 23 April 1992 entry in her  medical  records  indicates  that  she
weighed 163 pounds.

It was planned that she would enter into the WMP and exercise program.   She
was also scheduled for diet counseling.

On 2 September 1992, she was  enrolled  in  the  Weight  Management  Program
(WMP).  She weighed 160 ¼ pounds, had a  body  fat  of  36%;  the  body  fat
standard is 28%.

On 2 October 1992, she was evaluated and weighed  in  at  160  pounds,  with
body fat of 34%.

On 2 November 1992, she was evaluated and weighed 156 pounds, with body  fat
of 32%.  The weight processing  report  indicates  that  the  applicant  was
overweight by 11 ½ pounds and exceeded body fat by 4%.

On 2 December 1992, she was evaluated and weighed 161 pounds,  with  a  body
fat of 34%.

On 21 December 1992, the applicant underwent suction assisted  lipectomy  of
the  hips,  thighs,  abdomen,  flanks,  and   inner   thighs.    In   total,
approximately 900ccs of fat were removed during surgery.

On 11 January 1993, her commander delayed her January 1993 weight  and  body
fat determination until 8 February 1993.

On 12 January 1993, applicant received a Referral OPR because of  the  “Does
Not Meet Standards” rating in Item 3, of Section V, Performance Factors.

OPR profile since 1992 follows:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                  * 3 Jan 93       Does Not Meet  Standards  (Referral
OPR)
                  3 Jan 94        Meets Standards
                  3 Jan 95              (MS)
                  3 Jan 96              (MS)
                  3 Jan 97              (MS)





                  3 Jan 98              (MS)
                 20 Feb 98   Training Report (TR)
                  3 Jan 99              (MS)
                  3 Jan 00              (MS)
                  3 Jan 01              (MS)

* Contest Report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSFM recommended denial.  They indicate that the  applicant  failed
to prove an injustice occurred.   Specifically,  she  failed  to  prove  the
documented unsatisfactory  period  was  in  error.   Her  chain  of  command
followed the governing directives that were in effect in 1993.   Her  senior
rater was well within his purview and the Air Force Policy when he  mandated
documentation on her OPR for failure to progress in  the  weight  management
program (WMP).

The Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial.  They state that the applicant was  placed
on the Weight Management Program (WMP) on 2 September 1992.  She  maintained
body fat standards until her December weight  in.   When  the  member’s  OPR
closed out she was  in  Code  2  (Unsatisfactory  Progress)  on  the  Weight
Management Program.  The applicant contends because of a number  of  factors
(menstrual cycle, a  perceived  more  accurate  “body  fat  scan,”  and  the
genetics of Hispanics) her  evaluation  should  not  reflect  unsatisfactory
ratings/comments.  However, the rater referred the report to  the  applicant
on 12 January 1993.

The applicant states she underwent elective Suction  Assisted  Lipectomy  of
the hips, thighs, abdomen, flanks, and inner thighs prior  to  the  closeout
date of the OPR.  The surgery,  on  21 December  1992,  was  after  she  was
identified as making unsatisfactory progress and  she  was  not  weighed  or
measured in January to accommodate  the  convalescent  time.   Additionally,
she  underwent  a  water  submersion  test  on  three  separate   occasions.
However, these tests were also after the closeout date of the report.

The applicant is  now  requesting  the  referral  comments  be  removed  and
substituted with revised  comments.   The  revised  comments  refer  to  the
member as a superb planner and  manager,  a  key  contributor,  with  strong
leadership and communication skills, and include a recommendation  for  PME.
The applicant did not provide statements from the evaluators supporting  the
changes.

Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate  as  written  when
it becomes a matter of record.  The applicant did not provide  any  evidence
that she was erroneously placed on  the  Weight  Management  Program  (WMP);
that she was not making unsatisfactory progress when the report closed  out;
or  that  the  evaluators  have  reconsidered  their   initial   assessment.
Therefore, the report is not considered erroneous or unjust.

The Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided a response,
with attachments, that is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant  recommended  denial.   He  indicates  that  the
applicant failed to establish that the OPR now in question was  in  any  way
invalid at the time of its writing, and, indeed,  in  her  response  to  the
referral, noted that adherence to WMP  standards  and  measurements  by  the
body circumference method was applicable and not  contested  at  that  time.
Rather  than  seeking  quantification  by   the   immersion   technique   of
measurement, the  applicant  chose  to  have  excess  body  fat  removed  by
surgical means, finding out later that this had little, if  any,  effect  on
her measurements or weight.  It was  only  then  that  she  sought  out  the
immersion technique which, at this late stage, cannot be  expected  to  tell
the whole story of what was happening some two years prior.   The  applicant
provides no clear and incontrovertible evidence  that  she  did  not  exceed
weight and body fat standards that led to her referral OPR,  and  compliance
with her present request cannot be favorably recommended.  In spite of  this
initial OPR, she has been promoted at least twice, the result of  the  Major
Selection Board in June of this  year  not  being  known  from  her  current
records.

The evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  applicant  reviewed  the  evaluation  and  provided  a  response,  with
attachments, that is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________



THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law  or
regulations.

2.    The application was not timely filed; however, it is in  the  interest
of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error  or  injustice  warranting  her  OPR  closing  3
January 1993 be  amended.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's  complete
submission in judging the merits of the case; however,  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.  The applicant contends that she received a  referral
report and referral letter by entering into the first unsatisfactory  period
of the weight management program (WMP).  The applicant entered  the  WMP  in
September 1992 and while she initially made satisfactory progress  in  Phase
1 of the program in October and November 1992, in December 1992, she  gained
2% body fat, thereby constituting an  unsatisfactory  progress  period.   In
accordance with the AFR in effect at the time, it appears  that  the  rating
chain did not exceed their authority when  they  noted  this  unsatisfactory
performance on the contested report.  Applicant’s contentions pertaining  to
hydrostatic testing are duly noted; however, after an exhaustive  review  of
the evidence provided, we agree with the Air  Staff  assessments  concerning
this matter, especially those of the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant,  and  adopt
their rationale as the basis for our  conclusions  that  the  applicant  has
failed to sustain her burden of establishing  the  existence  of  either  an
error or  an  injustice  warranting  favorable  action  on  these  requests.
Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief   sought   in   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 AFBCMR Docket Number  01-00857
in Executive Session on 6 March 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Panel Chair
                  Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
                  Ms. Marcia Jane Bachman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 March 2001, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSFM, dated 15 May 2001.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 5 June 2001.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 June 2001.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 9 July 2001.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated
               13 December 2001.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 December 2001.
   Exhibit I.  Letter , Applicant, dated 11 January 2002,
                   w/atchs.





                                FREDERICK R. BEAMAN III
                                Panel Chair