RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01988
            INDEX NUMBER: 100.00

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    The Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) closing 13 November  2000,  13
November 2001, and 13 November 2002, be removed from his records.

2.     His  rank  of  staff  sergeant  (E-5)  be  retroactively   reinstated
effective 30 October 2001, with all back pay and allowances.

3.    He receive supplemental promotion consideration for cycle  01E6  using
his 1 February 2001 cycle 01E6 test scores.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His former rank should be reinstated because his demotion was  solely  based
on his alleged failures in the  Weight  and  Body  Fat  Measurement  Program
(WBFMP) and his  medical  history  clearly  demonstrates  that  his  medical
condition inhibited his ability  to  control  his  weight  and  successfully
complete the WBFMP.   He  should  never  have  been  medically  cleared  for
participation in the WBFMP.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits statements from  his  commander,
command chief, flight superintendent, and defense  counsel.   The  commander
concurs with the requested  relief  and  states  that  had  the  applicant’s
medical condition been known from the beginning,  he  would  not  have  been
punished under the Weight Management Program (WMP).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was identified as over body fat  on  23 March  1999.   He  was
placed in the WBFMP on 28 April 1999.  He received a  Letter  of  Counseling
(LOC) on 6 August 1999, for his first failure in the WBFMP.  He  received  a
Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for his second failure on 5 November  1999,  which
was later invalidated by his commander.  He received an LOR for  his  second
failure on 29 August 2000 and received an LOR and was placed  on  a  Control
Roster for his third failure 6 March 2001.  His commander placed the LOR  in
an Unfavorable Information File (UIF).  He  was  demoted  to  the  grade  of
senior airman (E-4) on 30 October 2001, for his fourth WBFMP  failure  on  2
July 2001.

On 5 December 2003,  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  Personnel  Council
determined applicant satisfactorily served in the grade  of  staff  sergeant
(E-5) and approved his advancement to that grade on 1 April 2014.

Applicant retired in the grade of senior airman (E-4) for length of  service
on 1 April 2004.  He completed 20 years of active service.

Applicant’s performance profile since 1992 follows:

             PERIOD ENDING               OVERALL RATING

               15 Mar 93                       4
               12 Mar 94                       4
               12 Jun 95                       5
               12 Jun 96                       4
               12 Dec 97                       3
               13 Nov 98                       4
               13 Nov 99 (referral)            4
             * 13 Nov 00                       4
             * 13 Nov 01 (referral)            1
             * 13 Nov 02                       3
               13 Nov 03                       5

* Contested EPRs

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  states,  in  part,  that  applicant’s  various
medical conditions were not cause  for  his  inability  to  lose  weight  or
participate in  regular  moderate  exercise,  with  the  exception  of  post
operative recovery from June to August 2002 and April to  July  2003.  Since
December 1999, his history of thyroid  disease  was  not  a  factor  in  his
progress on the WBFMP.  However,  there  were  a  large  number  of  medical
documents issued by a variety of physicians while the applicant was  on  the
WBFMP, which sent mixed messages and apparently  created  confusion  in  the
minds of the applicant, his chain of  command,  and  staff  responsible  for
administrating the program, with regard to when he was, and when he was  not
medically cleared for WBFMP  participation.   In  view  of  this,  the  BCMR
Medical  Consultant  recommends   the   appropriate   offices   review   the
administrative aspects of the case.

The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPE recommends the applicant’s request to void  the  EPRs  be  denied
and states, in part, that applicant’s contentions are not validated  by  the
documentation provided.  The reports are correct and accurate.  None of  the
physical profiles issued during the rating periods state that he  could  not
weigh in or be placed on the WBFMP.

The AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPWB states, in part, that individuals who are making  unsatisfactory
progress on the  WBFMP  or  receive  a  referral  report  are  automatically
ineligible for promotion.  Although applicant  tested  for  cycle  01E6  his
test was never scored and was destroyed after two years.

The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/JA recommends the application be  denied  and  states,  in  part,  that
regardless of the mixed messages  and  confusion,  the  evidence  shows  the
applicant was properly enrolled  in  the  WBFMP.   Several  months  of  good
progress on the WBFMP program suggest his medical condition did not  prevent
him from losing weight.  The commander should not  have  considered  one  of
the four occasions  of  unsatisfactory  progress  since  the  applicant  had
stopped taking his thyroid medication  which  would  result  in  his  weight
gain.  Even excluding this failure, the three  remaining  progress  failures
which were cited in the notification letter support the demotion action.

The AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit F.

AFPC/DPPSFPC recommends the application be denied and states, in part,  that
applicant’s commander was within his authority  in  applying  administrative
actions as a result of the  WBFMP  failures.   Although  there  are  several
administrative errors within the WBFMP case file they do not invalidate  the
case file.  The unit commander removed a weigh-in based on  a  legal  review
and the medical authority  tailored  his  WMP  to  accommodate  his  medical
history.  The applicant has shown that  he  can  lose  and  maintain  weight
loss.

The AFPC/DPPSFPC evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Complete  copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 21 May 2004 for review and response within 30  days.   However,
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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice to warrant voiding the contested EPRs.   The
applicant has provided no evidence to indicate  the  contested  reports  are
inaccurate assessments of his performance during the contested periods.   We
note that to effectively challenge an EPR, it is important to hear from  all
the evaluators on the contested report—not only for support,  but  also  for
clarification/explanation.  The statements from  applicant’s  commander  and
command chief master sergeant are noted; however, they do not  indicate  how
the reports are in error or unjust.  Therefore, in the absence  of  evidence
to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the
applicant’s request for voidance of the contested reports.   Although  there
appears to have been administrative errors  within  applicant’s  WBFMP  case
file,  they  do  not  invalidate  the  case  file.   Furthermore,  the  unit
commander removed a weigh-in based  on  a  legal  review  and  his  WMP  was
tailored by the medical authority to accommodate his medical history.   With
the exception of his post operative  recovery,  which  was  well  after  his
WBFMP failures occurred, it appears  that  his  medical  condition  did  not
inhibit his ability to successfully complete the WBFMP.

4.  Notwithstanding the above, we believe sufficient relevant  evidence  has
been presented to demonstrate the  existence  of  an  injustice  to  warrant
reinstating applicant’s  former  rank  of  staff  sergeant.   Based  on  the
supporting statement from his commander, and noting his  years  of  service,
we believe the LOC and LORs applicant received were  sufficient  punishment.
In view of this,  and  noting  the  legal  review  of  the  demotion  action
recommended applicant be given one more chance, we believe the  interest  of
justice can best  be  served  by  reinstating  his  former  grade  of  staff
sergeant (E-5).  Therefore, we recommend his records  be  corrected  to  the
extent indicated below.

5.  Applicant also requested supplemental promotion consideration  beginning
with cycle 01E6 using his cycle 01E6 test  scores;  however,  since  he  was
automatically ineligible  for  promotion  during  the  cycle  based  on  his
unsatisfactory progress on the WBFMP, his test  was  never  scored  and  was
destroyed after two years.  Further, there exists no provisions  to  provide
him  supplemental  promotion  consideration  while  in  a  retired   status.
Moreover, we believe the reinstatement of his former grade will provide  him
full and fitting relief.  In view of the above  determination,  his  request
for supplemental promotion consideration beginning  with  cycle  01E6  using
his cycle 01E6 test scores, is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show  that  on  30 October  2001,  he  was  not
reduced to the grade of senior airman (E-4), but on that date, he  continued
to serve in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), and  retired  in  that  grade
effective 1 April 2004.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered  Docket  Number  BC-2003-01988
in Executive Session on 8 July 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member
                       Mr. Robert H. Altman, Member

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

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 May 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 20 Oct 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 26 Feb 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 9 Mar 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 14 May 04.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPSFOC, dated 17 May 04.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 May 04.




                                   GREGORY H. PETKOFF
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2003-01988




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 XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that on 30 October 2001,
he was not reduced to the grade of senior airman (E-4), but on that date,
he continued to serve in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), and retired in
that grade effective 1 April 2004.









JOE G. LINEBERGER

Director

Air Force Review Boards Agency