RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01648
            INDEX CODE:

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His line number for promotion to staff  sergeant  for  cycle  02E5  be
reinstated.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The significant differences in the body fat measurements  at  Ramstein
AB, Germany and Officer Training School (OTS) Maxwell AFB, AL  led  to
his disenrollment from OTS.  Because of his  disenrollment  from  OTS,
his line number was removed and not reinstated.  He believes this  was
unreasonable.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a  personal  statement,  a
copy of the Enlisted Promotion Information  –  WAPS  Score  Notice,  a
special order, a copy AF Form 108, Weight Program Processing,  a  copy
of the Record Print Escape Quit – Percentage of Body Fat  Measurement,
two memorandums showing Body Fat Measurements, a copy of DD Form  785,
Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate – Type Training, and  a
copy of AETC Form 125A,  Record  of  Administrative  Training  Action.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in  the  grade
of staff sergeant, having been promoted to that  grade  effective  and
with a date of rank of 1 December 2003.

Applicant was selected for OTS in April 2002.   On  26  June  2002  he
tested and was considered for promotion to staff sergeant during cycle
02E5.  He was selected and received a promotion sequence number  (PSN)
of 18443.0 (1 August 2003 increment date).  While out-processing  from
Ramstein AB, Germany, he weighed-in over his maximum allowable  weight
(MAW) at 204 pounds and was sent to the  Health  and  Wellness  Center
(HAWC) to be body fat (BF) measured.  On 4 November 2002, he  measured
at 16 percent body fat, four percent  under  his  BF  standard  of  20
percent.

The applicant left Ramstein  AB,  Germany,  on  9  November  2002  and
arrived Maxwell AFB, AL, on 11 November 2002.  Upon arrival at OTS  on
13 November 2002, the applicant was again weighed  and  measured.   He
weighed 206.5 pounds and measured at 22 percent BF, two  percent  over
his BF standard.  The 24 TRS/CC directed the applicant be weighed  and
measured again the next day; the applicant weighed 205.75  pounds  and
measured 21 percent BF.  On 14 November 2002, he was disenrolled  from
OTS for exceeding his Air  Force  BF  standard  and  was  returned  to
enlisted status and assigned to Shaw AFB.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPF recommends denial of applicant’s  request.   DPF  stated  the
applicant’s commander was within his authority in applying  Air  Force
entrance requirements  for  OTS  by  disenrolling  the  applicant.   A
complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB  states  in  accordance  with  AFI  36-2502,  Chapter   3,
paragraph 3.1, airmen in the grades senior airman and  below  entering
OTS are promoted to staff sergeant effective one day before departure,
but no earlier than the 11th day before report  not  later  than  date
(this is for pay purposes only).  The projected  promotions  of  staff
sergeant selects or above are removed from the Personnel  Data  System
(PDS) when the PSN is after  program  entry  (as  in  the  applicant’s
case).  Letters are placed in their records indicating  grade,  cycle,
and PSN.  Their promotion eligibility may be reinstated  if  they  are
eliminated from training through no fault of their own.

On 10 July 2003 applicant  submitted  a  request  to  AFPC/DPPPWM  for
reinstatement of  his  line  number.   His  request  was  disapproved.
DPPPWB  agrees  with  this   decision.    It   was   the   applicant’s
responsibility to meet and maintain weight/body fat standards, and  he
failed to do so.  He is therefore not eligible  for  reinstatement  of
his line number.  In order to ensure  the  enlisted  promotion  system
continues to be fair and equitable to nearly 100,000 airman  and  NCOs
who  compete  each  year  under  WAPS,  they  must  insist  that  each
reinstatement meets stringent criteria.  They must also be  consistent
in the application of the  rules  governing  reinstatement.   Anything
short of this is not fair to the rest of the  enlisted  force.   As  a
matter of information, the applicant was supplementally considered and
selected for promotion to staff sergeant for cycle  03E5.   He  should
receive  notification  of  his  selection  within  the  near   future.
Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

This evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states he is  not  contesting  the  recommendation  made  by
AFPC/DPF to deny relief because the 24 TRS/CC was within his authority
in applying AF entrance requirements for OTS.  What he  is  contesting
is the standardization of body  fat  measurements  from  Ramstein  AB,
Maxwell AFB, and Shaw AFB.

He did not feel it was necessary to provide documentation  noting  the
measurements taken upon arrival at Shaw AFB because he  noted  he  was
within standards upon arrival at Shaw AFB, and was never placed on the
Weight Management Program.

Upon arrival at Shaw  AFB  on  11  December  2002,  he  weighed  under
standards at 189.5 pounds.  The next weigh-in  was  due  to  receiving
orders for a TDY to Ramstein AB.  On 12  March  2003  he  weighed  200
pounds and was measured at 20  percent.   Prior  to  attending  Airman
Leadership School (ALS) on 4 June 2003,  he  weighed  196  pounds  and
measured 13 percent.

In order to lose seven percent from 12 March 2003 to 4  June  2003  he
would  have  to  lose  26  pounds  instead  of  the  four  pounds  the
documentation represented.

If the body fat measurements would have been consistent throughout the
two bases he would have never been placed in  this  position.   If  he
would have stayed enlisted, he would have received staff sergeant  for
the 02E5 cycle.

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, 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 timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of injustice warranting a reinstatement of his promotion  to
staff sergeant during cycle 02E5.  We note the applicant was  selected
for promotion to  the  grade  of  staff  sergeant  subsequent  to  his
selection for entry into OTS in April 2002.  Even though the  loss  of
this selection based on his entry into  OTS  prior  to  the  time  the
promotion would have been incremented was  proper  and  in  accordance
with the governing directive, we believe, based on  the  circumstances
in this case, the earlier selection for promotion should be  restored.
The available record indicates  that  almost  immediately  before  his
departure for OTS, the applicant did not meet his MAW but that he  was
well below (by four percentage points) his required BFM.  Less than 10
days later, he was again weighed and, while his body  weight  had  not
substantially changed, there was a drastic increase  in  his  reported
BFM (nearly six percentage points above his previously  recorded  BFM)
that we find bizarre.  Because of the BFM  recorded  at  OTS,  he  was
disenrolled and returned to enlisted status at a new assignment  where
he states he was immediately found to be within the regulatory  weight
standards.  We are unable to discern if there was an error in  any  of
the recorded measurements and, if so, where the error occurred on  the
basis of the available evidence.  Nevertheless, we have no  reason  to
doubt the fact that the applicant is  currently  within  the  required
standards in view of his  selection  for  promotion  during  the  next
cycle.  Based on the above, we believe any doubt  as  to  whether  the
applicant was the victim of an injustice should  be  resolved  in  his
favor by granting the requested relief.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he was promoted to the
grade of staff sergeant effective and with date of rank  of  1  August
2003.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 28 October 2004, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member
              Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Member

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

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 May 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPF, dated 22 Jul 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 3 Aug 04.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Aug 04.
   Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Response, dated 30 Aug 04.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair




AFBCMR BC-2004-01648




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, be corrected to show that he was promoted to the
grade of staff sergeant effective and with date of rank of 1 August
2003.







   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency