RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-04247
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be retroactively promoted to the  grade  of  senior  airman  (SrA)
effective and with a date of rank (DOR) of 13 October 2000.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was place on the Weight and Body Fat  Management  Program  (WBFMP)
after having a baby on or about May 2000.   She  had  routine  medical
evaluations done to rule out thyroid disease.  She continuously failed
her weigh-ins  from  2000-2003.   She  received  numerous  letters  of
counseling (LOCs) as well as  letters  of  reprimand  (LORs)  and  yet
remained  on  active  duty  without  promotion.   Her  paperwork   for
discharge kept getting pushed under the table since she was  an  asset
to the Air Traffic Control facility at Cannon  AFB.   In  2003,  after
trying to conceive for a year and a half, she was referred to  women’s
medical center, where she was diagnosed with insulin resistance,  Type
II diabetes.  She was placed  on  medication  as  well  as  a  medical
profile, making her exempt from the WBFMP.  Her doctor typed a  letter
to her commander trying to justify why she should be promoted, due  to
the fact that she was unable to  control  her  weight  without  proper
medication.  Still, no action was  taken  to  aid  in  her  promotion.
Shortly after, she conceived, making her once again  exempt  from  the
WBFMP.  She understands that had she been promoted in 2000 to SrA, she
would have been eligible to test for staff sergeant (SSgt) six  months
later.  That makes three consecutive cycles that  she  was  unable  to
test for SSgt.  Over the duration of this period, she has been able to
perform her duties as an Air Traffic Controller, as  well  as  an  Air
Force member.  She is separating from  the  Air  Force  on  12 January
2004.

The applicant did not submit  any  documentation  in  support  of  the
appeal.  Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 29  April  1998  for  a
period of 6 years.  She was promoted to  the  grade  of  airman  first
class (A1C) on 13 June 1988.  During her service,  she  received  five
Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) for the periods ending 12  January
2000, 12 January 2001,  12  January  2002,  12 January  2003,  and  12
January 2004, in which the promotion recommendations were 4, 5, 4,  4,
and 5 respectively.

According to the Air Force office of primary responsibility, based  on
applicant’s DOR to airman first  class  (A1C),  she  would  have  been
promoted to SrA on 13 October 2000.  However, on 11 September 2000 her
commander placed  her  promotion  in  withhold  status  based  on  the
determination she was not within weight and body fat  standards.   The
withhold was to be in effect until she was placed into Phase II of the
program.

On 1 April 2004, the applicant was honorably discharged in  the  grade
of airman first class under the provisions of AFI  36-3208  (Pregnancy
or Childbirth).  She was credited with 5 years, 11 months and  3  days
on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSFOC states that they e-mailed the applicant on 21 January 2004
and requested she provide either a copy of her WBFMP case  file  or  a
letter of support from her commander detailing how  she  was  unfairly
treated while on the WBFMP.  The applicant requested an  extension  on
26 January 2004 to provide the documentation.  They replied by  return
e-mail to determine how much additional time the applicant would  need
but did not receive a reply.   Therefore,  they  recommend  denial  of
applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB states they were able to  obtain  the  promotion  withhold
letter and a portion of the applicant’s WBFMP case  file  that  covers
the period January 2002-November 2003 from Cannon  AFB.   During  that
timeframe, she never met her body fat standard of 28 percent.  She was
placed on a profile from 7 May 2003 until 15 June  2003.   On  7  June
2003, the profile was  extended  until  16 September  2003.   She  was
weighed and taped 17 September 2003 with a loss of seven  pounds  from
her previous weigh-ins  (18 January  2003),  but  an  increase  of  10
percent body fat (from 30 percent to 40  percent,  with  her  standard
being 28 percent).  She was placed in Weight Status Code (WSC) 5 on  5
November 2003 due to pregnancy.

The AF Form 393, Individual  Record  for  the  Weight  Management  and
Fitness Improvement Training (FIT) Programs,  reflects  the  applicant
had two failures while participating in  Phase  I  of  the  WBFMP  (25
September 2002 and 3 February  2003).   The  policy  of  rendering  an
individual ineligible for promotion when he or  she  is  in  Phase  I,
Weight Status Code 2 (unsatisfactory progress), of the WBFMP, was made
in 1995 by senior Air Force leaders in an effort  to  tie  maintaining
standards and performance  to  promotion.   It  is  not  in  the  best
interest of the Air Force to promote an individual who is not  meeting
the required weight standards because of  the  demands  required  when
performing  varied  Air  Force  missions.   Promotion   ineligibility,
because of weight, is the same as all other  ineligibility  conditions
outlined in AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, Table 1.1,  1  July
1999.  If on or after the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for
the respective cycle, a member is in one of these  conditions,  he/she
is ineligible for the entire cycle.  This means (as specified  in  the
AFPC/DPMA 091602Z Jun 95 message) a  member  cannot  test,  cannot  be
considered  if  already  tested,  and  their  projected  promotion  is
cancelled, if already selected.

DPPPWB stated the applicant has provided  no  documentation  regarding
her participation in the WBFMP for the period May  2000-January  2002.
Since her  record  does  not  contain  a  letter  from  her  commander
recommending promotion to SRA, they must conclude that  her  promotion
remained  in  withhold  status.   Therefore,   they   defer   to   the
recommendation of AFPC/DPSFOC.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 2 April 2004, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to
the applicant for review and response 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.  After reviewing the evidence  of
record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s records are in error
or that she has been the victim of an injustice.  Her contentions  are
noted; however, in our opinion, the detailed comments provided by  the
appropriate Air Force offices adequately  address  those  allegations.
Therefore, we agree with opinions and recommendations of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or  injustice.   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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 27 May 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Michael Novel, Member
                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Dec 03.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSFOC, dated 18 Feb 04.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 4 Mar 04, w/atch.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Apr 04.




                             GREGORY H. PETKOFF
                             Panel Chair