RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01498
            INDEX CODE:  102.2

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His technical sergeant (TSgt) stripe be reinstated.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Essentially, his commander did  not  consider  his  medical  problems.   His
orderly room did not review his medical profile, contact his doctor, or  the
base Military  Personnel  Flight  (MPF)  to  review  the  Weight  Management
regulation on the profile, the Sleep Apnea, or show him  the  regulation  of
the program which he was being placed on.  On 8 June 2001,  he  was  awarded
his stripe, however, by the end of the  day  his  stripe  was  removed.   He
found this embarrassing to himself and his 20 years of service  to  the  Air
Force, because of “The Failure of Due Process.”

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided medical records  and  other
documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  16  July  1980  in  the
grade of airman basic.

On 8 June 2000, the applicant was selected for promotion  to  the  grade  of
technical sergeant, with a date of rank and  effective  date  of  1  October
2000.  The promotion was cancelled and removed by his commander.




The applicant’s Enlisted Performance Report for the period 16 June  1988  to
15 June  1989  indicates  that  the  applicant  was  placed  on  the  weight
management program during that rating period.

The applicant’s medical records are not available;  however,  the  applicant
has provided the following information:

        At the time of retirement the  applicant  was  60  pounds  over  his
maximum allowable weight for his height of 5’ 10 1/2”.

        In 1994, the applicant had arthroscopic surgery on  his  left  knee.
In March 2000 he twisted his right ankle and also reported having left  knee
pain for over one year.  It was diagnosed that  he  had  degenerative  joint
disease and meniscus  disease  of  the  left  knee  and  degenerative  joint
disease of the cervical spine.  Prior to retirement, he was  diagnosed  with
Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome (OSAS).

Applicant was retired on 31 July 2000,  in  the  grade  of  staff  sergeant,
under the provisions AFI 36-3203 (Sufficient Service  for  Retirement).   He
served 20 years and 15 days total active duty service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommended  denial.   The  applicant  retired
after 20  years  of  service.   Although  not  specifically  stated  in  the
available records, the applicant had a stripe he had just earned taken  away
from him for failure to meet Air Force weight standards  and  was  thus  not
allowed to reenlist (assuming he so desired).  He contends that his  medical
problems including his  knee  condition  and  the  OSAS  were  not  properly
considered by his commander.  OSAS  is  not  a  cause  of  obesity,  rather,
obesity is a cause of OSAS.  Symptoms of excessive daytime  sleepiness  from
OSAS can interfere with  duty  performance,  however  the  applicant’s  EPRs
reflect excellent duty performance, and just  prior  to  his  retirement,  a
recorded Epworth Sleepiness Scale score was  essentially  normal  indicating
little or no trouble with excess daytime sleepiness.   OSAS,  especially  in
the absence of excessive daytime sleepiness, does  not  interfere  with  the
ability to exercise.  The applicant did have problems  with  his  knee  that
may have limited his choice of aerobic  exercise  to  swimming  or  cycling.
The acute ankle injury in  March  2000  may  have  temporarily  limited  his
ability to exercise but was not the cause of his  weight  problem  that  was
documented to have begun over 10 years previously.





It appears that the  applicant  had  difficulties  with  meeting  Air  Force
weight standards for many years and developed OSAS related to  his  obesity.
At the time of his retirement he was 60 pounds over  his  maximum  allowable
limit for his height.  His OSAS did not  appear  to  produce  symptoms  that
interfered with his excellent duty performance or his ability  to  exercise.
He also had knee problems that limited his choice  of  aerobic  exercise  to
maintain fitness but it does not appear that his  condition  prohibited  him
from participating in acceptable forms of exercise to maintain  fitness  and
weight (cycling or swimming).  Action  and  disposition  in  this  case  are
proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air  Force  directives  that
implement the law.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB deferred to the BCMR Medical Consultant’s recommendation.   They
indicated that the applicant  was  notified  by  the  commander,  ---  Civil
Engineer Squadron, of his  promotion  to  the  rank  of  technical  sergeant
(TSgt) on 8 June 2000.  He states by the end of that  day,  the  stripe  was
removed.  There is no  documentation  in  the  applicant’s  record  of  this
action or the reason for it.  There is also no information in  the  Weighted
Airman  Promotion  System  indicating  his  ineligibility   for   promotion.
However, medical documents provided by the  applicant  indicate  he  was  60
pounds over his maximum allowable weight during  the  final  months  of  his
career (retired 31 July 2000).  In accordance with AFI 36-2502,  Table  1.1,
Rule 20, an airman is ineligible  for  promotion  if  making  unsatisfactory
progress  on  the  weight  management  program.   Based  on  the   lack   of
documentation to the contrary, they must assume his stripe was  removed  for
this reason.  It is not in the best interest of the Air Force to promote  an
individual who is not meeting the required weight standards because  of  the
demands required when performing varied Air Force missions.   The  commander
was acting within his authority when he  removed  the  projected  promotion.
However, if  the  Board  does  not  agree  with  the  nonrecommendation  for
promotion, it could direct promotion  to  TSgt  with  a  date  of  rank  and
effective date of 1 October 2000.  In accordance  with  AFI  36-2502,  Table
2.1, Rule 3, the  airman  is  eligible  for  promotion  if  recommended,  in
writing, by the promotion authority.  He or she must serve  on  active  duty
in enlisted status as of the  promotion  eligibility  cutoff  date,  serving
continuous active duty until the effective date of promotion, and is not  in
a condition listed under Table 1.1 on or after  the  PECD.   Therefore,  the
Board would also have to  direct  the  adjustment  of  applicant’s  date  of
retirement to 1 November 2000 (AFI 36-3203, paragraph 3.2.2).

The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________




APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 23 August 2002, copies of the Air Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days.  As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or an injustice.   The  applicant  contends  that  his
medical problems (degenerative joint disease and  meniscus  disease  of  the
left knee,  patellofemoral  syndrome,  degenerative  joint  disease  of  the
cervical spine, and Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome)  were  not  considered
by his commander in the decision to remove his  technical  sergeant  stripe.
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.   In
particular, the BCMR  Medical  Consultant  states  that  the  applicant  had
difficulties  with  meeting  Air  Force  weight  standards   and   developed
Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome (OSAS) related  to  his  obesity.   At  the
time of his retirement he was 60 pounds over  his  maximum  allowable  limit
for  his  height.   His  OSAS  did  not  appear  to  produce  symptoms  that
interfered with his duty  performance  or  his  ability  to  exercise.   The
applicant had knee problems that limited his choice of exercise to  maintain
fitness but it does not  appear  that  his  condition  prohibited  him  from
participating in some form of exercise to maintain fitness and  weight.   In
accordance with AFI 36-2502, Table 1.1, Rule 20,  an  airman  is  ineligible
for promotion if making unsatisfactory progress  on  the  weight  management
program.  Therefore, the Board is of the  opinion  that  the  commander  was
acting within  his  authority  when  he  removed  the  projected  promotion.
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 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  02-01498
in Executive Session on 25 September 2002, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Panel Chair
                  Mr. E. David Hoard, Member
                  Ms. Diane Arnold, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 April 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant,
               dated 3 July 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 8 August 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 August 2002.




                                LAWRENCE R. LEEHY
                                Panel Chair