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.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested reports do not reflect his true performance due to  a
medical condition.  Due to his medical condition, he  was  unfairly
rated, which had a direct impact on his ability to progress in rank
and to be awarded decorations.

In support of his appeal, applicant provides a  medical  statement,
copies of his EPRs, both contested and uncontested, and a  copy  of
his earlier appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is presently serving on active duty in the grade of  TSgt
(E-6).  A resume of the applicant’s last ten EPRs follows:

        Closeout Date                   Overall Rating
         *24 Feb 94                          4
         *24 Feb 95                          4
         *24 Feb 96                          4
         *29 Aug 96                          4
         *29 Aug 97                          4
         *24 Jan 98                          4
         *24 Jan 99                          5
         *24 Jan 00                          4
          01 Aug 00                          5
          06 Jul 01                          5

*  Reports contested by applicant

The remaining relevant facts pertaining  to  this  application  are
contained in the evaluations prepared by the appropriate offices of
the Air Force found at Exhibits C, D, and E.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that the  applicant’s
medical  condition  caused  his  weight  gain  that   resulted   in
administrative consequences adversely  affecting  his  career.   He
recommends  that  the  Board  consider  this  when  reviewing   the
applicant’s request.

The applicant was diagnosed with a benign tumor  of  the  pituitary
gland in Jan 98 that was surgically removed one  year  later.   The
endocrinology specialist caring for the applicant reports that  the
tumor has been present for several years and was the cause  of  the
applicant’s inability to lose weight.  The applicant contends  that
his symptoms of fatigue, headache, and  inability  to  lose  weight
reduced his duty performance and thus  the  career  progression  he
contends he would have achieved had he not suffered from the tumor.
 He points to his stellar performance reports  prior  to  1993  and
after 1999 as evidence that his potential  career  achievement  was
denied him by his disease.

It can be concluded that the  applicant’s  difficulty  with  weight
management  was  due  to  his  prolactinoma.   The  fact  that  the
prolactinoma was not diagnosed for several years after he began the
weight management program is not surprising based on  the  relative
lack of symptoms and insidious nature of the condition.  Had he not
been in the weight management program, his condition would not have
been suspected and diagnosed until more serious complications  such
as visual impairment occurred.  Another issue is whether there were
other symptoms  affecting  his  duty  performance  other  than  his
weight.  There are no medical entries to suggest any.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial  of  the  applicant’s  request.   The
applicant did not prove that the reports are unjust.  The applicant
contends that his medical condition hindered his  duty  performance
beyond his control, specifically stating that his weight became  an
issue.  However, there is no mention of a weight problem in any  of
his reports.

The rating chain tasked with assessing the applicant’s  performance
on each of the individual performance reports rated  him  based  on
the performance  they  observed.   Nothing  has  been  provided  to
indicate their assessments were not fair and accurate.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPWB evaluated the impact of the contested  reports  on  the
applicant’s promotion  opportunities.  They defer to AFPC/DPPPEP on
the issue of removing the reports.

Based on their review,  even  if  the  applicant  had  the  maximum
weighted score of 135.00, his total score  would  have  been  below
cutoff for promotion.  The applicant was ineligible for cycle  99E6
due to unsatisfactory progress on the  weight  management  program.
Also, if the Board were to remove all the applicant’s EPRs  between
1994 and 2000, the applicant would not have an EPR  weighted  score
for cycle 00E6 and would be considered nonweighable.   However,  as
an exception to policy and if the Board  so  directed,  applicant’s
EPR with a closeout date of 1 Aug 00  could  be  applied  to  cycle
00E6, which would make him a select for this cycle.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluations.  In  response
to the statement made by AFPC/DPPPEP that his EPRs do  not  contain
any mention of a weight problem, the applicant states that  all  of
the contested EPRs are marked down in Section  III,  Item  3,  “How
well does ratee comply with standards.”   He  indicates  that  many
times the comments on the backside of an EPR fail  to  explain  the
markings  on  the  front.   The  applicant   also   discusses   the
verification of his medical condition and why he was not  initially
aware of the impact of his illness on his performance.

In regard to  his  ineligibility  for  cycle  99E6  due  to  making
unsatisfactory  progress  on  the  weight  management  program,  he
indicates that he should have never been medically cleared for  the
program, rendering him eligible for cycle 99E.  He requests that if
the Board confirms this that he  be  given  supplemental  promotion
consideration.  He also requests that due to his  mental  fogginess
at the time of testing that  a  current  test  be  applied  to  his
previous testing cycles.

Applicant’s complete response is 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  error  or  injustice  warranting  the
removal of five of the eight reports that the applicant requests be
removed from his records.  While acknowledging that  the  applicant
suffered from a  medical  condition  that  may  have  impacted  his
performance, in the opinion of the Board,  the  five  EPRs  closing
24 Feb 94, 24 Feb 95, 24 Feb 96, 24 Jan 99, and 24 Jan  00  overall
favorably rated the  applicant’s  performance  and  do  not  differ
significantly from earlier reports  which  he  has  not  contested.
Although  the  applicant  maintains  that  his  medical   condition
precluded him from meeting weight  standards  or  performing  to  a
level documented in the reports previous to those contested, we are
not persuaded that the contested reports, as written, do not fairly
and accurately  assess  his  performance.   We  note  that  if  the
applicant’s medical condition had been diagnosed earlier, he  could
still be entered into the weight management  program,  but  qualify
for a medical deferral from phase I.   A medical deferral would not
have relieved his supervisors from the responsibility to accurately
evaluate  his  performance.   Although  former   members   of   the
applicant’s rating chain indicate that  had  they  known  that  the
applicant was suffering from a medical condition  that  they  would
have rated him higher, they do not indicate  why  the  reports,  as
written, are now inaccurate.  We also note the statement of one  of
his previous raters, “The enlisted performance reports in  question
were written factually about his daily performance.”  Therefore, in
the absence of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  cannot  recommend
granting this portion of the relief requested.

3.  Notwithstanding the above conclusions, we  do  find  sufficient
relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate  the  existence
of error or injustice warranting removal of the  EPRs  closing  out
29 Aug 96, 29 Aug 97, and 24 Jan 98 and to make  him  eligible  for
promotion consideration  during  the  99E6  cycle.   We  note  that
according  to  the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant,  the  applicant  was
diagnosed with a benign tumor of his  pituitary  gland  in  January
1998 and that the endocrinology specialist caring for him  reported
that the tumor had been present for several years and was the cause
of his inability to lose weight.  In light of this, we believe that
the  applicant  should  have  been  medically  deferred  from   the
requirement to lose weight during this period and should  not  have
been ineligible for promotion consideration during cycle  99E6  due
to unsatisfactory progress on the weight management  program.   The
Board further notes that the EPRs closing out 29 Aug 96, 29 Aug  97
and 24 Jan 98 reflect lower ratings in Section III,  Item  3,  “How
well does ratee comply with standards?” than  the  other  contested
reports.  Although the reports do  not  contain  specific  comments
regarding  the  applicant’s  weight  problems,  we  believe  it  is
reasonable to conclude that these ratings were  influenced  by  the
applicant’s weight problems.   Therefore,  we  recommend  that  the
applicant’s records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:


1.  The following Enlisted Performance Reports, AF Form 910s, rendered
on him for the periods indicated be declared void and removed from his
records.

        a.  EPR, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 25 February 1996
through 29 August 1996.

        b.  EPR, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 30  August  1996
through 29 August 1997.

        c.  EPR, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 30  August  1997
through 24 January 1998.

2.  In January 1998, he was granted a medical deferral from Phase I of
the weight management  program  and  he  was  eligible  for  promotion
consideration to the grade of technical sergeant during cycle 99E6.

It is further directed that he be provided supplemental  consideration
for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) beginning  with
cycle 99E6.

If selected for promotion to  technical  sergeant  by  supplemental
consideration,  he  be   provided   any   additional   supplemental
consideration required as a result of that selection.

If AFPC discovers any  adverse  factors  during  or  subsequent  to
supplemental  consideration  that  are  separate  and  apart,   and
unrelated to the issues involved in  this  application  that  would
have rendered the applicant  ineligible  for  the  promotion,  such
information will be documented and presented to  the  Board  for  a
final determination on  the  individual’s  qualifications  for  the
promotion.

If supplemental promotion consideration results  in  the  selection
for promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion
the records shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to  the
higher grade on the date of rank established  by  the  supplemental
promotion and that he is  entitled  to  all  pay,  allowances,  and
benefits of such grade as of that date.

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board  considered  Docket  Number  02-
01006 in Executive Session on 9 October 2002, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
      Mr. Clarence D. Long, III., Member
      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member

All members voted to correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Mar 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated
                 6 May 02.
     Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 30 May 02.
     Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 4 Jun 02.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 14 Jun 02.
     Exhibit G.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 10 Sep 02, w/atchs.




                                   VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR 02-01006

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction  of  Military  Records  and  under  the
authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A  Stat
116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the  Air
Force relating to XXXXXXXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX, be corrected to show
that:

            1.  The following  Enlisted  Performance  Reports,  AF
Form 910s, rendered on him  for  the  periods  indicated  be,  and
hereby are, declared void and removed from his records.

                    a.  Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form  910,
rendered for the period 25 February 1996 through 29 August 1996.

                    b.  Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form  910,
rendered for the period 30 August 1996 through 29 August 1997.

                    c.  Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form  910,
rendered for the period 30 August 1997 through 24 January 1998.

            2.  In January 1998, he was granted a medical deferral
from Phase I of the weight management program and he was  eligible
for promotion consideration to the  grade  of  technical  sergeant
during cycle 99E6.

      It is further directed  that  he  be  provided  supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant (E-
6) beginning with cycle 99E6.

       If  selected  for  promotion  to  technical   sergeant   by
supplemental  consideration,  he  be   provided   any   additional
supplemental consideration required as a result of that selection.

      If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during  or  subsequent
to supplemental consideration that are  separate  and  apart,  and
unrelated to the issues involved in this  application  that  would
have rendered the applicant ineligible  for  the  promotion,  such
information will be documented and presented to the  Board  for  a
final determination on the  individual’s  qualifications  for  the
promotion.

      If  supplemental  promotion  consideration  results  in  the
selection for promotion to the  higher  grade,  immediately  after
such promotion the records shall be corrected to show that he  was
promoted to the higher grade on the date of  rank  established  by
the supplemental promotion and that he is  entitled  to  all  pay,
allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date.



            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency