RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01905
INDEX NUMBER: 131.02
XXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His promotion to technical sergeant (TSgt) (E-6) earned during the 99E6
promotion cycle and cancelled due to unsatisfactory progress on the
weight management program (WMP) be reinstated.
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His problems with maintaining his weight were due to side effects
suffered from taking the anthrax shots, both before and after he was
placed on the weight management program (WMP).
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_______________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant retired from active duty in the grade of Staff Sergeant
(SSgt) effective 1 Jan 01 after 20 years of service. The applicant’s
WMP casefile indicates that he was entered into phase I of the weight
management program (WMP) on 9 Feb 99 at a weight of 231 pounds and
bodyfat of 29 percent. His allowable bodyfat standard was 24 percent.
The applicant was required to lose either 1% bodyfat or five pounds
each month for satisfactory progress. The AF Form 393, Individual
Record for the Weight Management and Fitness Improvement Training
Programs, reflects the following progress by the applicant:
Date Weighed Weight/Bodyfat% Gain/Loss Action Taken
12 Mar 99 222/28 -9/-1% N/A
12 Apr 99 228/26 +6/-2% N/A
17 May 99 223/26 -5/-0% N/A
21 Jun 99 217/26 -6/-0% N/A
30 Jul 99 214/27 -3/+1% None Indicated 31 Aug 99
214/29 0/+2% None Indicated 30 Sep 99 210/25
-4/-4% N/A 24 Nov 99 217/26 +7/+1%
Counseling 29 Dec 99 216.5/28% -0.5/+2% Counseling
02 Feb 00 214.5/27% -2/-1% N/A 03 Mar 00
211/25% -3.5/-2% N/A
05 Jun 00 228/30% +17/+5% LOR(new duty station)
05 Jul 00 220.75/29% -6.25/-1% N/A
10 Oct 00 239.5/31% 16.25/+2% Starting Term Lv
On 22 July 99, the WMP Medical Officer recommended that the applicant
be given a body fat adjustment of 5 percent for no more than 6 months
due to the applicant’s loss of 20 pounds since his entry into the
program with no decrease in body fat. The WMP Medical Officer later
amended his recommendation due to a review of the applicant’s AF Form
393, which indicated that since he was entered into the WMP, the
applicant had actually lost 14 pounds with a 3 percent decrease in
bodyfat. The WMP Medical Officer indicated that if the applicant
continued to lose weight with no decrease in bodyfat, based on the
results of his Jul 99 and Aug 99 weigh-ins, he would consider a
bodyfat adjustment of 2 percent for no more than 6 months.
On 6 Aug 99, the applicant’s squadron commander submitted a request to
the Wing Commander to grant the applicant a 5 percent bodyfat
adjustment for no more than 6 months based on the applicant’s
inability to reduce his bodyfat level from 29 percent despite an
aggressive exercise regimen and a total weight loss of 14 pounds since
his entry into the program. The Group Commander concurred with the
request, but it was disapproved by the Wing Commander. The
vaccination certificate provided by the applicant reflects that he
began his anthrax series on 25 Feb 99.
The applicant tested for promotion to TSgt during cycle 99E6 and was
selected with a promotion sequence number of 989.0 which would have
been effective 1 Sep 99. His commander cancelled his selection for
promotion to TSgt due to his unsatisfactory progress on the weight
management program (WMP). A resume of his last ten performance reports
follows:
Closeout Date Overall Rating
12 Nov 90 3
*28 Feb 92 3
28 Feb 93 4
26 Feb 94 4
26 Feb 95 5
26 Feb 96 4
01 Dec 96 4
01 Dec 97 5
01 Dec 98 5
01 Dec 99 4
* Referral Report due to unsatisfactory progress in WMP.
_______________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s
request.
The applicant’s contention that his weight problems that led to his
rank reduction were somehow related to receiving anthrax injections is
not borne out on careful perusal of his medical records. Rather, he
had a career-long problem reaching and maintaining standards, and had
received a referral performance report in 1992 because of this. His
commander acted within bounds in withholding or withdrawing his
promotion because of his numerous failures and no inequity or
impropriety is found that would warrant approval of his present request
for rank reinstatement.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial of the applicant’s request.
Promotion ineligibility because of weight is outlined in AFI 36-2502,
Airman Promotion Program, Table 1.1, Rule 20, dated 1 Jul 99. If on or
after the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for the respective
cycle, a member is in one of the indicated conditions, he/she is
ineligible for the entire cycle. This means a member cannot test,
cannot be considered if already tested, and cancellation of projected
promotion if already selected. AFPC/DPPPWB notes that either because
the Commander’s nonrecommendation was not timely or the PDS was not
properly/timely updated, the applicant erroneously received payment as
a TSgt for the month of Sep 99.
The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
5 Oct 01 for his review and comment within 30 days. To date a response
has not been received.
_______________________________________________________________
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 agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the
primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the
victim of an error or injustice. We were not convinced that the
applicant’s problems in the weight management program were due to
effects he suffered from anthrax shots. Rather, we accept the
assessment by the BCMR Medical Consultant that the applicant had
problems meeting weight standards throughout his career. Therefore, 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 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 6 December 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Jun 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant,
dated 16 Aug 01.
Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 20 Sep 01,
w/atchs.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 5 Oct 01.
JOHN L. ROBUCK
Panel Chair
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 31 July 2002 the applicant was released from active duty in the grade of technical sergeant with an effective date of promotion of 2 May 2002 and retired in the same grade on 1 August 2002. Consequently, since the effective date of promotion determines eligibility to receive pay and allowances in that grade, the applicant would not be entitled to back pay and allowances as requested. ...
_______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Applicant’s counsel submitted a 21-page Brief of Counsel with 17 exhibits to show that the applicant suffered an injustice when his squadron commander failed to completely implement his medical waiver from participation in the Air Force WMP and, subsequently issued him a LOR for unsatisfactory progress in the WMP resulting in the applicant losing his promotion to TSgt. Doctor D_______ concluded that a...
Promotion eligibility is regained only after receiving an EPR with an overall rating of “3” or higher that is not a referral report, and closes out on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for the next cycle. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. The Chief, Performance Evaluations Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, also reviewed the appeal and notes the Medical Consultant’s review of the applicant’s medical condition. A complete copy of the evaluation...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01337
On 21 Aug 03, the applicant requested a letter stating her diagnosis of insulin resistance and its effects on her weight. At the time the action was taken against her she was undergoing tests for insulin resistance, five years after she told medical personnel she suspected something was wrong because she could not lose weight. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 3 February...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01006
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01006 INDEX NUMBER: 111.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: All Enlisted Evaluation Reports (EPRs) rendered on him beginning with the report closing 24 Feb 94 and ending with the report closing 24 Jan 00 be voided and removed from his records. While...
AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0094
CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE | pp002-0094 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable. While an honorable discharge is the most serious service characterization that can be given in a failure to meet standards discharge under the Weight and Body Fat Management Program, the fac eats also being discharged for Minor Disciplinary Infractions allow for a less favorable service characterization. Weight and Body Fat Management Program...
_______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was selected for promotion to SSgt twice, but never promoted due to weight problems and placement on the Weight Management Program (WMP), problems that were later determined to be medical in nature (diagnosed with severe narcolepsy). Her section commander subsequently requested reinstatement of her selection that was to be effective 1 Apr 99. ...
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00076
This was a one pound weight loss and four percent body fat gain from your previous (ita monthly weight evaluation on 26 Jun 96, constituting unsatisfactory progress on the [P. On 14 Aug 96, you acknowledged your weight and body fat percentage determined on 30 Jul 96, as evidenced by your signature on AF Form 393, Individual Record of Weight Management, at attachment 1. g. On 7 Oct 96, you weighed 240 pounds and your body fat percentage was determined to be JS? In response to this...
She provided a letter from a new commander in which he proposes retroactive promotions based on his review of the records and opinion that her weight problem was outside her control and that her duty performance warranted such promotions. Had this been known, her previous commander would have requested promotion from the wing commander. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2001-01974
The applicant contends that his hypothyroidism caused him to gain weight while on active duty which resulted in his demotion. While his failure to maintain Air Force weight standards was the basis for his demotion, records indicate new weight baselines were frequently established and only after repeated failures did the commander initiate demotion action. Exhibit B.