RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01839
            INDEX NUMBER:  108.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge from the Air Force for exceeding body fat  standards  be
changed to a medical retirement.

In his  rebuttal,  applicant  amended  his  request  to  ask  for  his
administrative discharge to be set aside  and  to  be  given  military
retirement vice a medical retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In a four-page letter, applicant asserts that  his  discharge  due  to
exceeding body fat standards was inequitable based on the following:

        1.  Weight control  procedures  were  not  enforced  equitably
across the board, i.e., officers and enlisted  were  not  treated  the
same.

        2.  He was under medical supervision  before  and  during  the
discharge process, suffering from depression, high blood pressure, and
other illnesses.

        3.  He  did  not  receive  adequate  representation  from  his
appointed counsel.

Applicant asserts that he would not have been discharged under current
standards.  He summarizes his participation  and  performance  in  the
weight management program, which led to his eventual discharge.

Applicant states that his average performance and  efficiency  ratings
were good with most being excellent.  He provides a list of awards and
decorations he received as well as a list of individuals from whom  he
received letters of recommendation.

Applicant asserts that his  ability  to  serve  was  impaired  due  to
personal problems he was experiencing at the time.  He indicates  that
he was having marital and  child-care  problems.   He  also  discusses
family related personal and financial problems, which he contends also
impacted his ability to serve.  Finally, he states that  he  also  had
psychiatric problems and spent a week in the hospital for depression.

Due to his depression, he was not aware of what was  going  on  around
him.  As a result he signed an  unconditional  waiver  of  his  rights
associated with an administrative discharge board hearing.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty on 10 Mar 75.  On 18 Jun  90,  while
serving in the grade of staff sergeant, the applicant  was  placed  on
the weight management program based on a current weight of 226½ pounds
with a maximum allowable weight of 202 pounds.  Applicant was required
to lose a minimum of three pounds per month for satisfactory progress.
 However, in Feb 91, the weight management program  was  revised  with
standards based on body fat percentage and after a lapse to  implement
the new program, the applicant was started under the new standards  on
15 Apr 91.  The applicant’s maximum allowable body fat percentage  was
24%.  On  22 Apr 91, the applicant was measured with  a  body  fat  of
23%.  On   17 Jun 91, the applicant’s body fat was  measured  at  25%.
On    26  Jun  91,  he  received  a  letter  of  reprimand  (LOR)  for
unsatisfactory progress.  The applicant met standards on his    17 Jul
91 measurement.  However, on his 29 Aug 91  measurement,  he  exceeded
allowable body fat standards by 2%.  On 5 Sep 91, he received  another
LOR.  On 30 Sep  91,  the  applicant  again  met  allowable  body  fat
standards.  On 30 Oct 91, the applicant exceeded  allowable  body  fat
standards.  He received his third LOR on 31 Oct 91.  The applicant did
not have another unsatisfactory measurement  until  4  Sep  92.   This
constituted his fourth unsatisfactory body fat measurement.  For  this
he was demoted to the grade of senior airman, effective 29 Oct 92.  On
7 Dec 92, the applicant’s body fat again exceeded allowable standards.
 Discharge action was initiated.

On 16 Dec 92, the applicant’s squadron section commander notified  him
that  he  was  recommending  to  the  support  group   commander   the
applicant’s discharge from  the  Air  Force  for  exceeding  body  fat
standards.  On 16 Dec 92, the applicant acknowledged receipt and  also
offered  a  conditional  waiver  of  his  rights  associated  with  an
administrative  discharge  board  hearing,  with  the   exception   of
submitting matters.  The waiver  was  contingent  upon  the  applicant
receiving an honorable discharge.  On 16  Dec  92,  the  Center  staff
judge advocate reviewed and found the  discharge  action  against  the
applicant legally sufficient to support his discharge.  He recommended
that the applicant’s conditional waiver be accepted  and  that  he  be
discharged from the Air Force without  probation  and  rehabilitation.
On 17 Dec 92, the support group  commander  accepted  the  applicant’s
conditional waiver and directed that he be  discharged  from  the  Air
Force with an honorable discharge.  The applicant was discharged on 18
Dec 92.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends that the applicant’s request be
denied.  None of the applicant’s medical problems made  the  applicant
unfit for continued active duty.  Medical conditions developing  after
discharge or existing conditions that  were  not  unfitting  while  on
active duty that become worse after discharge, including mental health
conditions, do not  make  a  former  member  eligible  for  Air  Force
disability.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD also recommends denial of the applicant’s appeal.  The  mere
fact that a person may have been treated for a medical condition  does
not automatically  mean  the  condition  is  unfitting  for  continued
military service.  To be unfitting, the medical condition must be such
that it, by itself, precludes the person from fulfilling  the  purpose
for which he  or  she  is  employed.   To  qualify  for  a  disability
retirement, the service member would have had to attain a  serious  or
life threatening medical condition prior to release from active  duty.
The preponderance of evidence submitted  by  the  applicant  fails  to
substantiate or support his request for a disability retirement.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force  evaluation,  applicant  states  that
although  he  disagrees  with  their  recommendation   to   deny   his
application, he did not mean to ask for disability.  He states that he
did hope that his administrative discharge would be set aside and that
he would be given a military retirement.  His primary reasons for this
are his 17 years, 9 months, and 9 days of military service  and,  most
importantly, the inequitable treatment he received on the WMP.

The applicant references  his  earlier  assertion  that  officers  and
enlisted members on  the  program  were  not  treated  the  same.   He
discusses the case of an officer that was more overweight than he was,
but had no action taken against him.  The applicant also discusses the
inadequate legal counsel that he received.  He contends that if he had
known that it would  have  taken  more  than  his  base  commander  to
discharge him, he would have tried to hold on a few more months  until
he reached retirement or he was offered an early retirement.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   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 offices 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.  The applicant indicates that  he
hoped we would set aside his administrative discharge and grant him  a
retirement due to two primary factors, his years of  service  and  his
inequitable treatment in the Weight Management Program.  Regarding his
17 plus years of service, under AFR 39-10, dated 9 Aug 91, Section  F,
paragraph 6-35, the applicant was entitled  to  special  consideration
for probation upon his request.  The  applicant  instead  waived  this
entitlement.  He blames this decision on poor legal advice.   However,
he has not provided  sufficient  evidence  to  prove  this  assertion.
Likewise, regarding his claims  of  unfair  treatment  on  the  Weight
Management Program, he has not provided sufficient evidence  to  prove
this  assertion.   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 Docket  Number  BC-2003-
01839 in Executive Session on 18 March 2004, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 May 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant,
                dated 21 Oct 03.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPD, dated 16 Jan 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Jan 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Feb 04.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair