RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02787
            INDEX CODE:  131.03, 131.04
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The Date of Rank (DOR) of his promotion to the  grade  of  airman  first
class (E-3) be changed to 19 Nov 99 with an effective date of 8 Apr 00.

2.  The DOR and effective date of his promotion to senior  airman  (E-4)  be
changed to 19 Mar 02.

3.  He be supplementally considered for promotion  to  the  grade  of  staff
sergeant (E-5) for the 03E5 promotion cycle.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he initially met with his recruiter in March 1999, he weighed  220  lbs
and was told he could not enlist because he exceeded the  maximum  allowable
weight (MAW).  In July 1999 he weighed-in at 193 lbs and met  the  standards
for enlistment.  During basic military training his weight  dropped  to  186
lbs.  In accordance with his enlistment agreement, he  was  supposed  to  be
promoted to the grade of airman first class on 8 Apr 00.  He had a  weigh-in
on 24 Mar 00 at 195.5 lbs, exceeding the maximum weight limit, and was  sent
to the Health and Wellness Center  (HAWC) for a body  fat  measurement.   At
no time prior to this was he informed of this procedure.  He  was  taped  at
28% body fat, 8%  higher  than  what  is  allowed  by  regulation.   He  was
enrolled in the Weight and Body  Fat  Management  Program  (WBFMP)  and  his
promotion was placed in withhold status.   In  August  2001,  his  body  fat
measured at 20% but due to an unsatisfactory weigh-in on 20 Nov 00,  he  was
not promoted to airman first class until one year and five months  after  he
was originally scheduled for promotion.

Applicant feels as though he was set up  for  failure  by  allowing  him  to
enlist when it was obvious he was not within body  fat  standards.   Instead
of losing 1.5 lbs to meet the weight standards, he should have lost  26  lbs
to meet the body fat standards.  If time had been taken prior to  enlistment
to verify his body fat percentage he would have known that he did  not  meet
Air Force standards.

In  support  of  his  request,  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,
documentation  associated  with  his  promotion  withholding,  a  Letter  of
Reprimand;  AF  Form  418,  Selective  Reenlistment  Program  Consideration;
statements of support, promotion orders, and his enlistment  contract.   His
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 6 Oct 99 in the grade  of  E-
1.  At that time he weighed 186 lbs, which was 8 lbs  under  his  MAW.   His
enlistment contract specified that  he  would  be  promoted,  with  pay  and
allowance, to the grade of E-3 upon completion of  technical  training.   On
24 Mar 00, applicant was weighed-in prior to his projected  promotion  on  6
Apr 00.  He weighed 195.5 lbs, 1.5 pounds over his MAW.  He was referred  to
the HAWC for a body fat measurement and it was determined he  exceeded  body
fat standards by  8%.   He  was  placed  in  the  WBFMP  and  his  projected
promotion was placed in a withhold status.  On 20 Nov 00, the applicant  had
an unsatisfactory weigh-in which rendered him ineligible  and  canceled  his
projected promotion.  He has been promoted to E-2 on 27 Aug 01,  to  E-3  on
27 Jun 02, and to E-4 on 27 Feb 04.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSFOC recommends denial.  DPSFOC states in  accordance  with  AFI  40-
502, Weight and Body Fat Measurement Program, weight  measurements  will  be
administered prior to  processing  personnel  for  promotion  and  body  fat
measurements will be administered when a member exceeds the MAW.   The  body
fat standard is 20% for men 29 years old and younger  and  24%  for  men  30
years old and older.  He was directed to weigh-in for  promotion  processing
and exceeded his MAW.  His commander notified him of the promotion  withhold
on 24 Mar 00.  In the withhold  letter  the  commander  advised  him  if  he
failed to make satisfactory progress while in Phase I of the WBFMP he  would
lose his promotion entirely.  He acknowledged the withhold action on 24  Mar
00.  The DPSFOC evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial.  DPPPWB agrees  with  the  DPSFOC  evaluation
and adds that in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion  Program,  if
an  airman  is  making  unsatisfactory  progress  in  the  WBFMP,  they  are
ineligible for promotion and will  not  receive  supplemental  consideration
for any cycle for which they were ineligible.  The DPPPWB evaluation  is  at
Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial.  DPPAE states that like  all  members  of  the
Air Force, the applicant  received  briefings  in  Basic  Military  Training
about standards and adhering to them  to  maintain  qualifications.   It  is
clear he understood Air Force standards upon his initial  attempt  to  enter
the Air Force.  The bottom line is that the promotion was  withheld  due  to
him violating Air Force  weight  standards.   His  claim  that  he  was  not
briefed on the body fat  program  by  his  recruiter  and  at  the  Military
Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) is irrelevant because he was not  subject
to body fat measurements at the time.  His claim that no  one  ever  briefed
him or he was unaware of the standards is unfounded.  The  DPPAE  evaluation
is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/JA recommends denial.  JA states when he enlisted in the Air  Force  he
was  within  the  MAW  requirements  established  in  AFI  48-123,   Medical
Examination  and  Standards,  which  governs  the  physical  standards   for
entering the Air Force.  According to that directive, if  an  individual  is
found to be at or below their MAW a body fat  measurement  is  not  required
and processing can continue.  Regarding  his  argument  that  the  recruiter
should have informed him of the body fat standards, JA states the  recruiter
informed him of the accession standards, which were MAW standards,  and  the
applicant cited no rule that required him to do otherwise.  It was  his  own
failure that resulted in his commander's decision to  delay  his  promotion.
He admits he knew his MAW as early as March 1999, prior to  his  enlistment.
Accordingly, for at least a year before his weigh-in on 24 Mar 00,  he  knew
the weight standard that applied to him.  His failure to meet that  standard
triggered the requirement to administer a body fat measurement.

Under AFI  40-502,  the  commander  was  required  to  administer  a  weight
measurement prior  to  promotion.   If  a  member  fails  to  meet  the  MAW
requirements, then the commander  is  required  to  administer  a  body  fat
measurement.  Since he was not in compliance, the commander  was  authorized
to withhold his promotion.  However, after he made unsatisfactory  progress,
he was rendered ineligible for  promotion  to  E-3  and  his  promotion  was
terminated.  Once he was in compliance, he was promoted to   E-2,  not  E-3.
The promotion  part  of  his  contract  became  void  at  the  time  of  the
ineligibility condition.  The JA evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the  applicant  on  12
Mar 04 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice that would warrant  corrective  action.   We
find no evidence of error in this case and after  thoroughly  reviewing  the
documentation provided in support of his appeal, we do not  believe  he  has
suffered an injustice.  The applicant was not promoted to the grade  of  E-3
as indicated in his enlistment contract because of  his  inability  to  meet
the established weight standards.  It is our opinion that the applicant  was
aware of the standards and was  provided  every  reasonable  opportunity  to
comply with those standards; however, he  failed  to  do  so.   We  are  not
persuaded by the evidence presented that the actions taken against him  were
in error, in violation of the weight management regulation, or that  he  was
treated unfairly while enrolled in the  WBMFP.   His  contentions  regarding
why he was not made  aware  of  and  provided  a  BFM  has  been  adequately
addressed by the Air Force in their respective advisories to the Board.   As
such, we agree with  their  opinions  and  recommendation  and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that he has not  been  the  victim
of an error or injustice.  In the absence  of  persuasive  evidence  to  the
contrary,  we  find  no  basis  upon  which  to  favorably   consider   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  BC-2003-
02787 in Executive Session on 13 Apr 04, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
      Ms. Kathleen Graham, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Aug 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSFOC, dated 2 Mar 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 18 Feb 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 28 Feb 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 4 Mar 04.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Mar 04.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair