RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2002-03431
INDEX CODE 110.02
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The narrative reason for his discharge be changed so that his Veterans
Affairs (VA) benefits can be reinstated.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was discharged under the Weight Management Program (WMP) and was
denied VA benefits. The Air Force’s weight standards at the time were
not consistently applied and different standards were enforced at
different units. His height and maximum weight were changed several
times. His unit commander changed and her standards were different
than the previous commander’s. When he attempted to purchase his
first home, he discovered he was not entitled to VA benefits.
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 Feb 86. His
entrance exam reflected he was 69½ inches tall and weighed 188 pounds.
The applicant’s specific WMP records are no longer in his records as
they are destroyed when a member is discharged.
A medical entry dated 2 Dec 86 indicates the applicant was referred
for a reducing diet with a height of 69½ inches and a weight of 203
pounds. The maximum allowable weight (MAW) indicated was 191½ pounds.
A 3 Dec 86 diet specialist notation reflected the applicant’s weight
at 206½ pounds and his height at 70 inches. On 17 Dec 86, he weighed
203 pounds. On 31 Dec 86, he was weighed in his unit’s orderly room.
He had gained 2¾ pounds instead of losing the required five pounds.
For this he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) dated 8 Jan 87. This
constituted his first failure in the WMP. He was also advised that a
future unsatisfactory period could result in administrative
separation. On 17 Jun 87, he received another LOR for gaining 2¾
pounds.
On 17 Jun 87, the applicant was advised that his promotion to airman
first class, which would have been effective on 24 Jun 87, was being
withheld from 24 Jun 87 until the reason necessitating the withhold
action (entry in WMP) no longer existed and he was recommended for
promotion.
On 9 Oct 87, he received an LOR for gaining 7½ pounds and was placed
on the Control Roster.
Another LOR was issued on 5 Nov 87 for failure to go to his appointed
place of duty and failure to report to the hospital for proper
disposition. This LOR reflects a different squadron commander than the
previous LORs. A Report of Individual Counseling dated 6 Nov 87
indicated the applicant had been advised he was being considered for
discharge for failure to progress in the WMP.
A physical exam on 12 Jan 88 indicates a weight of 209 pounds, and
that he was overweight by 15 pounds. A 13 Jan 88 LOR states the
applicant had gained 10 pounds when he was weighed on 6 Jan 88.
On 15 Jan 88, the Airman Performance Report (APR) for the period
24 Feb 87 through 15 Jan 88 was referred to the applicant because it
contained comments regarding his unsatisfactory progress in the WMP.
He was not recommended for promotion and the overall rating was 6.
His only other APR, for the period 24 Feb 86 through 23 Feb 87, had an
overall rating of 8.
On 8 Feb 88, he was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend
discharge for failure to progress in the WMP. The applicant waived his
right to counsel and to submit statements. The case was found legally
sufficient on 12 Feb 88 and, on 17 Feb 88, the discharge authority
directed the applicant be separated with an honorable discharge.
He was honorably discharged on 18 Feb 88 in the grade of airman for
exceeding Air Force weight standards, and with 1 year, 11 months and
25 days of active service.
According to the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) handbook,
Federal Benefits for Veterans and Dependents, in order to be eligible
for home loan guaranties, a veteran must have a good credit rating, an
income sufficient to support mortgage payments, and agree to live in
the property. Eligibility varies with service. Post-Vietnam veterans
like the applicant who separated between 8 Sep 80 and 1 Aug 90 had to
complete 24 months of continuous active duty or the full period---at
least 181 days---for which the person was called or ordered to active
duty, and be discharged under conditions other than dishonorable; or
complete at least 181 days of active duty with a hardship, convenience
of the government, reduction in force or service-connected disability
discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPSFM notes that, contrary to the applicant’s contention,
there is no documentation in the discharge package that the
applicant’s height or weight maximum ever changed. Both commanders
were consistent with the governing directive and their application of
administrative actions. They recommend denial.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
HQ AFPC/DPPRS provide their rationale for recommend denial.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 3 Jan 03 for review and comment within 30 days. As of
this date, this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice to warrant changing the narrative
reason for the applicant’s discharge. The applicant claims his VA
benefits have been denied but we cannot determine with any certainty
what benefits, if any, have been denied or why. The VA has apparently
established certain criteria in order for individuals to qualify for a
home loan. Whether or not the applicant has satisfied that criteria is
best left to the VA. As for his contentions regarding the WMP, the
available evidence would indicate he did not make satisfactory
progress in the program. He has not demonstrated to our satisfaction
that his commanders did not properly or consistently apply the WMP
standards in effect at the time, or that the reason for his discharge
should be anything other than the one he was correctly given. We
therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt
the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either
an error or an injustice. In view of the above and absent persuasive
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend
granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
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 this application in
Executive Session on 17 April 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. Robert H. Altman, Member
Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2002-03431 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Oct 02.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSFM, dated 11 Dec 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 Dec 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jan 03.
ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR.
Panel Chair
On or about 22 Nov 85, he failed to progress satisfactorily in the Air Force WMP by gaining 10 pounds instead of losing the 5 pounds required. On 30 Jan 89, the commander, Air Refueling Wing, , received the proposed demotion case against the applicant and agreed with the applicant’s commander that demotion action was appropriate, effective 30 Jan 89. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00405
He asserted that his weight on entry into the Air Force was "too much" (though he was 20 pounds below the maximum allowed weight), and that he "had a handle" on his weight until his mother's illness (while in fact he exceeded weight standards at least as early as 1990). A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion...
_______________________________________________________________ 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 | 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...
After notification, the applicant provided a statement explaining his problems with the AMWAY solicitation and his weight. The Chief recommended applicant’s retirement as a 1LT. AC-XXXXXX, dated 29 Jan 96, directed that, effective 29 Feb 96, the applicant would be relieved from active duty and retired effective 1 Mar 96 in the grade of captain.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00360
He was told at the time of his reenlistment in 1985 that if he was not out of the weight program he could not reenlist. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, states the applicant’s records indicate he was overweight three years prior to his gall bladder surgery. Exhibit L. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 4 Nov 05.
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. However, at any prior time when she was over the maximum weight allowance, she always met body fat measurements. Exhibit E. Applicant, dated, 20 September 2000.
He was entered into the weight management program (WMP) because he failed to meet the Air Force weight standards. He gained more than 70 pounds in 3 months and it was due to the thyroid problem. The board recommended applicant be separated from the Air Force with an honorable discharge, without probation and rehabilitation.
On 20 May 1997, the applicant received an LOR for failure to reduce body fat or weight at the rate described for satisfactory progress in accordance with AFI 40-502, the WMP. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, AFPC/DPPRRP, also reviewed this application and states that the law which allows for advancement of enlisted members of the Air Force, when their active service plus service on the retired list totals...