RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01146
            INDEX NUMBER:  100.06, 110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed from “4B” to  “1”
to permit reentry into the military.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The discharge was in accordance with regulations; however,  it  was
inappropriate and is preventing him from re-entering the military.
His military record was clean with  the  exception  of  the  weight
management.  If accessible his enlisted  performance  reports  will
reflect what a good airman he was.

In support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  submits  a  personal
statement, a copy of his DD Form 214, a copy of his medical history
from 1997 to 1999, and a copy  of  his  notification  of  discharge
letter.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 6 Dec 93; he  served
on continuous active duty and  entered  his  last  reenlistment  on
11 Apr 97, for a period of six years.  His highest grade  held  was
senior airman.

On 1 Apr 98, the member was entered into the Weight  and  Body  Fat
Management Program (WBFMP).  At that time the member weighed  193.5
pounds and his body fat measurement (BFM) was 25 percent, exceeding
his BFM standard of 20 percent and his maximum allowable weight  of
189 pounds.

On  24  Nov  99,  the  applicant’s  commander  recommended  he   be
discharged for exceeding body fat standards.  The reasons  for  the
discharge action were:

     a.  On 5 Jun 98, the applicant  failed  to  make  satisfactory
progress in the WBFMP in that he failed to lose  the  required  one
percent body fat or five  pounds  since  his  previous  evaluation.
Instead his BFM of 24 percent and weight of 181 pounds reflected  a
2 percent gain in his BFM and a ½ pound weight loss.  For this, his
first unsatisfactory period in the WBFMP, he received a  letter  of
counseling (LOC) on 17 Jun 98.

     b.  On 7 Aug 98, the applicant  failed  to  make  satisfactory
progress in the WBFMP in that he failed to lose  the  required  one
percent body fat or five  pounds  since  his  previous  evaluation.
Instead his BFM of 24 percent and weight of 175 pounds reflected  a
1 percent gain in his BFM and a four pound weight loss.  For  this,
his second unsatisfactory period in the WBFMP, he received a letter
of reprimand (LOR) on 18 Aug 98.

     c.  On 10 May 99, the applicant failed  to  make  satisfactory
progress in the WBFMP in that he failed to lose  the  required  one
percent body fat or five  pounds  since  his  previous  evaluation.
Instead his BFM of 25 percent and weight of 197 pounds reflected  a
3 percent gain in his BFM and a zero pound weight  gain/loss.   For
this, his third unsatisfactory period in the WBFMP, he  received  a
LOR on 7 Jun 99 and  an  unfavorable  information  file  (UIF)  was
initiated.  Additionally, the applicant was placed on  the  control
roster.

     d.  On 24 Sep 99, the applicant failed  to  make  satisfactory
progress in the WBFMP in that he failed to lose  the  required  one
percent body fat or five  pounds  since  his  previous  evaluation.
Instead his BFM of 30 percent and weight of 193 pounds reflected  a
zero  percent  gain/loss  in  his  BFM  and  a  zero  pound  weight
gain/loss.  For this,  his  fourth  unsatisfactory  period  in  the
WBFMP, he was administratively demoted one pay grade.

     e.  On 25 Oct 99, the applicant failed  to  make  satisfactory
progress in the WBFMP in that he failed to lose  the  required  one
percent body fat or five  pounds  since  his  previous  evaluation.
Instead his BFM of 30 percent and weight of 198 pounds reflected  a
zero  percent  gain/loss  in  his  BFM  and  a  five  pound  weight
gain/loss.  For this, his fifth unsatisfactory period in the WBFMP,
administrative discharge action was taken.

The applicant received  six  Enlisted  Performance  Reports  (EPRs)
(covering all periods of service), all with overall ratings  of  4,
with his latest being a referral.

After consulting with counsel, applicant  waived  his  right  to  a
hearing before an administrative discharge board and did not submit
statements in his own behalf.  On 13 Dec 99, the group Staff  Judge
Advocate found the case file legally sufficient.

On 14 Dec 99, the discharge authority approved  the  recommendation
for discharge.  Applicant was honorably discharged on 21 Dec 99, in
the grade of airman first class, under the provisions of AFI     36-
3208, by reason of weight control failure.  He  was  issued  an  RE
Code of 4B [separated honorably for exceeding body fat  standards].
He served 6 years and 16 days of active military service.

Examiners Note:  RE-4B is a code  that  can  be  waived  for  prior
service enlistment consideration, provided member meets  all  other
requirements  for  enlistment  under  an  existing  prior   service
program.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSFOC  recommends  denial  and  states,  in  part,  that  the
applicant failed to satisfactorily lose the required weight or body
fat on  five  separate  occasions  as  depicted  in  his  discharge
proceedings contained in his  Unit  Personnel  Record  Group.   The
member received an exemption base line for the months of  June  and
July 1999 as detailed by Air Force policy.  The applicant was  also
medically exempted from the WBFMP from Oct 98 through Apr  99  even
though his medical profiles did  not  explicitly  exempt  him  from
weighing in  or  being  measured.   The  applicant  was  discharged
weighing 198 pounds and having a BFM of 30%.  The applicant has not
provided any relevant information to be eligible to reenter  active
duty.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSFOC evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE recommends the request be denied and  states,  in  part,
that after a review of the documents submitted by the applicant and
a review of his personnel record, there was nothing to support  the
course of action requested by the applicant.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 6 Aug 04, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).

___________________________________________________________________

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 an error  or  injustice.   Applicant’s
contentions are duly noted; however, we are not persuaded that  the
applicant has been the victim of an error  or  injustice.   At  the
time members are separated from the Air Force, they  are  furnished
an RE code  predicated  upon  the  quality  of  their  service  and
circumstances of their separation.  The RE code which was issued at
the  time  of  applicant’s  separation  accurately   reflects   the
circumstances of his separation and we do not  find  this  code  in
error or unjust.  Applicant’s RE code of 4B can be waived for prior
service enlistment  consideration,  provided  he  meets  all  other
requirements for enlistment and  depending  on  the  needs  of  the
particular service.  In view of the foregoing,  we  find  no  basis
upon which to recommend favorable action on his request that it  be
changed.

___________________________________________________________________

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-2004-
01146 in Executive Session on 5 October 2004, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
      Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Apr 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSFOC, dated 20 Jul 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 28 Jul 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Aug 04.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair