RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02656
            INDEX CODE:  100.06

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4B be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 27 Apr 98, she weighed in at 160 pounds.  She was eight (8)  pounds
under her maximum allowable weight.  Therefore, it is her opinion that
she should not have been entered into the  Weight  Management  Program
(WPM).

In support of her appeal, the applicant  provided  documentation  from
her military personnel records.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 Nov 97 for a  period
of four years in the grade of airman basic.

On 14 Sep 99, the applicant’s  commander  notified  her  that  he  was
recommending  that  she  be  discharged  for  failure  in  the  Weight
Management Program.  The specific reasons for this action were:

      a.  On or about 27 Apr 98, she weighed 160 pounds  and  measured
29 percent body fat.  The maximum allowable body fat for a  female  29
years old and younger in the Air Force was 28 percent.  She received a
medical evaluation on 28 Apr 98, dietary counseling on 13 May 98,  and
she entered a mandatory 90-day exercise program on 28 May 98.   On  or
about 15 May 98, she weighed 152 pounds and measured 27  percent  body
fat.  Because she met body fat standards after having  initially  been
identified as overfat and during her medical evaluation, her commander
placed her in Phase II of the WMP immediately upon entering her in the
WMP on 15 May 98.  Because her body fat percentage exceeded Air  Force
standards, thereby necessitating her entry in the WMP, she received  a
Letter of Counseling (LOC) on 28 May 98.

      b.  On or about 17 Sep 98,  she  failed  to  lose  the  required
three pounds or one percent body fat.   She  weighed  163  pounds  and
measured 29 percent body fat, which was an increase of 11  pounds  and
four percent body fat since her previous weigh-in on 17 Aug 98  (first
unsatisfactory period).  Because her body fat percentage exceeded  Air
Force standards, she received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) on 21 Sep 98
and she was reentered into Phase I of the WMP effective 17 Sep 98.

      c.  On or about 20 Oct 98, she was entered into Phase II of  the
WMP.  Less than six months later, on or about 3 Mar 99, she failed  to
lose the required three pounds or one percent body fat.   She  weighed
165 pounds and measured 29 percent body fat,  which  was  a  two-pound
loss and a one percent body fat increase since her  previous  weigh-in
on 19 Jan 99 (second unsatisfactory period).   Because  her  body  fat
percentage exceeded Air Force standards, she received an LOR on 16 Mar
99, an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) was established  on  16  Mar
99, and she was reentered into Phase I of the WMP effective 3 Mar 99.

      d.  On or  about  12  Apr  99,  she  failed  to  appear  at  her
scheduled, mandatory weigh-in.  As a result, she received an LOC on 13
Apr 99.  A copy of the LOC was placed in her existing UIF on 7 May 99.

      e.  On or about 20 Apr 99,  she  failed  to  lose  the  required
three pounds or one percent body fat.   She  weighed  169  pounds  and
measured 30 percent body fat, which was an increase of four pounds and
one percent body fat since her previous weigh-in  on  3 Mar 99  (third
unsatisfactory period).  As a result, she received an LOR on 5 May  99
and was placed on the Control Roster on 13 May 99.  The LOR was placed
in her existing UIF on 13 May 99.

            f.  On or about 10 May 99, she failed  to  appear  at  her
scheduled, mandatory weigh-in.  As a result, she received an LOR on 17
May 99.

            g.  On or about 20 May 99, she failed to lose the required
three pounds or one percent body fat.   She  weighed  168  pounds  and
measured 31 percent body  fat,  which  was  a  one-pound  loss  and  a
one percent body fat increase since her previous weigh-in on 20 Apr 99
(fourth unsatisfactory period).  Although  this  was  technically  her
fourth unsatisfactory performance in  the  WMP,  on  26  May  99,  her
commander elected not to use this adverse body fat measurement as  the
impetus for initiating an involuntary separation action.

            h.  On or about 1 Jul 99, she failed to lose the  required
three pounds or one percent body fat.   She  weighed  183  pounds  and
measured 34 percent body fat, which was an increase of 15  pounds  and
three percent body fat since her previous weigh-in on 20 May 99 (fifth
unsatisfactory period).

            i.  On or about 16 Aug 99, she failed to lose the required
three pounds or one percent body fat.   She  weighed  185  pounds  and
measured 37 percent body fat, which was an increase of two pounds  and
three percent body fat since her previous weigh-in on 1 Jul 99  (sixth
unsatisfactory period).  As a result, she received an LOR  on  17  Aug
99.

The applicant was advised of her rights in  the  matter  and  that  an
honorable discharge would be recommended.

In a legal review of the discharge case file, dated  28  Sep  99,  the
Office of  the  Staff  Judge  Advocate  found  the  file  was  legally
sufficient and recommended that the applicant be  discharged  with  an
honorable discharge.

The discharge authority approved the discharge action on 1 Oct 99  and
directed that the applicant be furnished an honorable discharge.

On 29 Oct 99, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI
36-3208 (Weight Control Failure) and furnished an honorable discharge.
 She was  assigned  an  RE  code  of  4B  (Separated  (honorably)  for
exceeding body fat  standards).   Applicant  had  served  1  year,  11
months, and 18 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSFM  recommended  denial  indicating  that  a  review  of   the
applicant’s  Weight  and   Body   Fat   Management   Program   (WBFMP)
documentation revealed that her unit properly administered  the  WBFMP
and correctly entered the applicant in the program  following  the  27
Apr 98 weight and body fat measurement.  The body fat standard  for  a
29 year old female is 28 percent.  While the applicant did meet weight
standards on 27 Apr 98, she exceeded her  body  fat  standard  by  one
percent.   Therefore,  the  commander  was  correct  in  placing   the
applicant in the WBFMP.  All mandatory actions were  taken  to  ensure
the program was administered properly and fair.  The  commander  acted
within his authority when recommending  the  applicant  for  discharge
after giving her 15 months to get herself within Air Force  standards,
and following seven periods of unsatisfactory progress.  According  to
AFPC/DPSFM, the applicant was properly entered in the WBFMP and failed
to meet Air Force standards after 15 months.   The  commander  pursued
all administrative avenues to get the applicant within standards prior
to his decision to discharge her.  The RE code of 4B was correct.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSFM is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE  recommended  denial  indicating  that  a  review  of   the
applicant’s records revealed that she received the proper RE  code  of
4B (Separated honorably for exceeding body fat standards).

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on  22
Nov 02 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

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.   The  applicant's  complete
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  her  contentions  were  duly
noted.   However,  we  do  not  find  the  applicant’s  uncorroborated
assertions or the documentation presented sufficiently  persuasive  to
override the rationale provided by the Air Force  offices  of  primary
responsibility (OPR).  The  evidence  of  record  indicates  that  the
applicant  was  involuntarily  discharged  for  exceeding   body   fat
standards.  There is no indication in the evidence provided  that  the
applicant’s discharge was improper or contrary to  the  provisions  of
the discharge directive under which it was effected.  As a  result  of
her discharge for exceeding body  fat  standards,  the  applicant  was
assigned an RE code of 4B.  It appears that the code was appropriately
assigned and accurately reflected the circumstances of her separation,
and, we find no evidence to indicate  the  assigned  RE  code  was  in
error.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence  of  evidence  to
the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to recommend  favorable
action on the applicant’s request that her RE code of 4B  be  changed.
We believe it should be pointed out to the applicant that her RE  code
of 4B is one that, based on  the  needs  of  the  respective  military
service, can be waived by the enlistment authorities.

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 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-
02656 in Executive Session on 14 Jan 03 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

      Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
      Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member
      Mr. George Franklin, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Sep 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSFM, dated 4 Sep 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 12 Nov 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Nov 02.




                                   CHARLES E. BENNETT
                                   Panel Chair