RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-00345
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her voluntary  separation  be  changed  to  an  involuntary  separation  for
medical reasons.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She has a legitimate medical reason  that  caused  her  body  fat  count  to
increase which prevented her from losing weight.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement and  a
letter from her commander, dated 19 January 2000.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  18  September  1978  in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of 4 years and was  honorably  discharged
on 17 September 1982.

During the time period in question, applicant was a Reservist.

Applicant’s available military and medical records  provided  the  following
entries:

      On 25 August 1982, the applicant had a regular  medical  office  visit
and the doctor indicated that she had gained 35 pounds  since  August  1981.
At that time she was 4 pounds in excess of weight standards.

      In 1983 she applied to the Veterans Administration for disability  for
an ankle condition.  She received less than 10% disability compensation.

      On 6 March 1993, she weighed 164 pounds and her height was 65  inches.
 Because she exceeded the weight standards  her  body  fat  measurement  was
done.  Her measurements: neck 14¼ inches, waist 31¾ inches, hips 38  inches,
all were well within the required body fat standards.

      On 10 September 1994, her body fat  measurements  were  31%,  neck  15
inches, waist 32¾ inches, and hips 39  inches.   She  passed  the  body  fat
requirements.

      On 3 December 1994, she was weighed  in  accordance  with  AFR  35-11.
Her height was 64¼ inches and  her  weight  was  175  pounds.   Because  she
exceeded the weight standards  her  body  fat  measurement  was  done.   Her
measurements: neck - 15½ inches, waist - 32½ inches, hips  40  inches,  were
within the required body fat standards.

No additional Form 393 (Individual Record and  Progress  Chart  for  Special
Physical Conditioning and Weight Management Programs) could be found in  the
applicant’s records.

On 7 January 1997, the applicant was involuntarily  reassigned  to  HQ  ARPC
for failure to meet Weight Management Program (WMP) standards.

On 16 September 1998, the applicant was honorably discharged  in  the  grade
of staff sergeant, with 14 years of satisfactory Federal service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFRC/DPM recommended denial.  They indicate that the military records  on
applicant reflect she was involuntarily reassigned to HQ ARPC on  7  January
1997 for failure to meet  Weight  Management  Program  (WMP)  standards  and
received  an  honorable  discharge  from  HQ  ARPC  on  16  September   1998
apparently for expiration of term of service.

HQ AFRC/SGPA states in their memorandum, dated 13 July 2000,  that  they  do
not find any medical documentation in this request or from  the  applicant’s
former  Reserve  medical  unit  which  indicates   she   had   a   medically
disqualifying condition  at  the  time  her  commander  took  administrative
action.   HQ  AFRC/SGPA  also  states  they  did  not   find   any   medical
documentation  that  states  the  applicant’s   diagnosis   or   medications
prevented her from losing weight.

HQ AFRC/DPMB indicates in their memorandum, dated 31  May  2000,  that  they
were unable to support the applicant’s request because she  did  not  submit
any WMP documentation to support her claim.   Specifically,  the  case  does
not contain the WMP memorandum  that  identifies  specific  WMP  phases  and
dates she was entered into the program and an AF  Form  393  that  documents
her weigh-ins.

If the application is approved, HQ AFRC should be  directed  to  revoke  the
involuntary reassignment and execute an administrative  discharge  based  on
physical disqualification.

The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 28 August 2000, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days.

On 20 September 2000, the applicant submitted a letter requesting  her  case
be withdrawn.

On 25 September 2000, applicant’s case was  withdrawn,  in  accordance  with
her request.

On 16 August 2001, the applicant reinstated her  application  and  indicated
that her physician  referred  her  to  another  physician  after  developing
further complications from taking medication for menopause.   It  has  taken
time for the two physicians to review her complete medical  history  and  to
give the correct medical treatment.  This has been done and there  is  still
no change as far as her weight gain.  She states that the proper  procedures
were never  followed  in  connection  with  the  WMP.   She  weighed  in  on
Saturday, December 1996, UTA and she was processed out on  Sunday,  December
1996 UTA.  She was told not to report back until her January  1997  UTA  and
later found out that she had been reassigned to ARPC by her commander.

Applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommended denial.   He  indicates  that  while
accepting the fact that menopause and its  treatment  may  contribute  to  a
woman’s  weight  gain,  the  amounts  recorded  over  the  course   of   the
applicant’s military service years far exceed  what  might  be  expected  if
this was the only source of her problem.   Laboratory  studies  consistently
showed normal thyroid functions and blood sugars  indicating  no  underlying
medical reason for her excessive weight gain and  retention.   Her  argument
for placing full blame on her developing  physiologic  menopausal  state  is
not borne out on review of these records,  and  favorable  consideration  of
her request is not supported by evidence of records.  He  finds  the  appeal
to be without merit.

The evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and  states  that  the  issue  is  not
about her weight.  She was over the maximum weight allowance.   However,  at
any prior time when she was over the maximum weight  allowance,  she  always
met body fat measurements.  Upon starting the menopausal symptoms  was  when
she had a problem with body fat measurements; this is what caused her to  be
unable to finish her military enlistment.  She  was  dealt  with  wrongfully
once it was discovered that she did not meet  body  fat  measurements.   She
was not allowed to bring in any medical  documentation  from  her  physician
nor was she allowed any time to defend this  action.   She  was  immediately
removed from active reserve status and was told there was nothing she  could
do about it.  She dedicated her entire life to the Air Force and feels  that
she has been mistreated.  If it had not  been  for  her  medical  menopausal
condition she would have  continued  to  meet  body  fat  measurements,  and
therefore able to serve out her entire enlistment,  receive  promotions  and
retire with 20 years of service.

Applicant’s response, with attachments, 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 timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of  probable  error  or  injustice  warranting  a  change  in  her
voluntary separation to  an  involuntary  separation  for  medical  reasons.
After reviewing  the  evidence  submitted  with  this  appeal,  we  are  not
persuaded that the applicant’s separation was either  in  error  or  unjust.
The applicant contends that her voluntary separation was unjust because  her
menopausal symptoms and her hormone replacement therapy prevented  her  from
losing  weight  and  maintaining  Air  Force  weight  and  body  fat   (WBF)
standards.  We note it is documented that menopause and its  treatments  may
contribute to a woman’s weight gain; however, according to  the  applicant’s
medical records, her weight started to  increase  prior  to  her  commencing
hormone treatment  in  1996.   Additionally,  the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant
states that laboratory studies consistently showed normal thyroid  functions
and blood sugars indicating no underlying medical reason for  her  excessive
weight gain  and  retention.   Further,  we  note  that  the  applicant  was
afforded ample opportunity  to  maintain  Air  Force  standards  before  any
separation action was taken.  Therefore, we find that the applicant has  not
established  that  the  onset  of  menopause  and  the  taking  of   hormone
replacement  medication  were  the  sole  reasons  for  her   weight   gain.
Furthermore, no evidence has been  presented  which  establishes  that  this
condition should be categorized as a medical disability which would  qualify
for an involuntary separation due to physical disability.  In  view  of  the
foregoing and 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 16 January 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Jr., Panel Chair
                  Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Member
                  Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 June 2000, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/DPM, dated 21 July 2001, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 30 November 2001.
   Exhibit E. Applicant, dated, 20 September 2000.
   Exhibit F. Applicant, dated 16 august 2001, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G. BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 13 November 2001.
   Exhibit H. AFBCMR, Letter, dated 19 November 2001.
   Exhibit I. Letter, Applicant, dated 26 December 2001, w/atchs.





                                JACKSON A. HAUSLEIN, JR.
                                Panel Chair