RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2001-01974
INDEX NUMBER: 131.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 May 2006
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. His administrative demotion be removed and his rank of technical
sergeant (E-6) be restored.
2. He receive supplemental promotion consideration for all missed
promotion opportunities.
3. He be retired as of 1 November 2001, at the highest promotion grade.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was seriously wronged by the system based on his medical conditions. In
1990, he was diagnosed with hypothyroidism and shortly thereafter was
placed on the Air Force Weight Management Program (WMP). His
hypothyroidism was not checked; however, he was temporarily waived from the
WMP after his diagnosis of hypothyroidism was known. In October 2000, he
was administratively demoted to E-5 in accordance with AFI 36-2503,
paragraph 17.4, Failure to Keep Fit. During the period 1990 - 2001, he was
unable to test approximately 8 times for advancement due to weight problem
and his performance appraisals were also substandard.
In support of his appeal, applicant submits a chronology of events for the
period in question. The applicant’s submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 31 October 2001 the applicant was released from active duty in the grade
of staff sergeant with an effective date of rank of 4 October 2000 and
retired in the same grade on 1 November 2001. He was credited with
20 years and 16 days of total active duty service. He was credited with
20 years, 3 months and 14 days service for basic pay. On 18 January 2001,
the Secretary of the Air Force approved his advancement on the retired list
in the higher grade of technical sergeant (E-6) upon reaching 30 years of
service.
A resume of his last five performance reports are as follows:
Closeout Date Promotion Recommendation
11 Oct 96 3
11 Oct 97 2(referral)
11 Oct 98 3
11 Oct 99 3
01 Sep 00 2(referral)
The remaining medical relevant facts pertaining to this application,
extracted from the applicant’s medical military records, are contained in
the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibit
C through E.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied. The BCMR
Medical Consultant states that the applicant does not provide convincing
evidence that his medical problems were either unfitting or totally
responsible for his repeated WMP failures. His units worked hard to allow
him to succeed in the WMP by repeatedly changing his baseline weight when
medical profiles indicated the need, but these profiles lapsed when good
medical control was gained. The BCMR Medical Consultant states that all
possible avenues to help the applicant achieve his weight standards were
explored, and his failures were not solely secondary to the facts of his
medical problems. The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the application be denied. DPPPWB states that on 27
September 2000, the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent to
recommend demotion. The applicant acknowledged receipt of this
notification on the same date. The demotion was found legally sufficient
and on 4 October 2000, the applicant was demoted from technical sergeant
to staff sergeant under the provisions of AFI 36-2503, Administrative
Demotion of Airmen, Section A, para 3.4 (Failure to keep fit).
Additionally, DPPPWB states that the applicant became ineligible for
promotion consideration to master sergeant for cycles 96E7, 97E7, and 99E7
for making unsatisfactory progress on the WMP. He was also rendered
ineligible for promotion consideration based on referral EPRs closing 11
October 1997 for cycle 98E7 and 1 September 2000 for cycle 00E7. DPPPWB
advises that based on his original date of rank of technical sergeant of 1
March 1991, the applicant was considered for the 94A7, 95A7, and 95E7
cycles and not selected. The applicant tested for the 00E7 cycle
(promotions effective 1 August 2000 - 1 July 2001) and was not selected.
The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D.
AFPC/DPSFM recommends the application be denied. DPSFM states that after a
review of the applicant’s Weight and Body Fat Measurement Program (WBFMP),
the applicant was afforded ample opportunity to come within Air Force
weight management standards. The applicant was weighed 47 times while on
the program and found to be unsatisfactory on 15 occasions. The
applicant’s commanders granted numerous grace periods when thyroid testing
indicated poor control resulting in weigh-in failures. DPSFM states that
the applicant displayed he was capable of making satisfactory progress on
several occasions. DPSFM finds no evidence that the WBFMP was
inappropriately administered. The AFPC/DPSFM evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 26 October 2001, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to
the applicant for review and comment (Exhibit F).
On 26 November 2001, applicant responded by advising this office that he
would like to temporarily withdraw his case pending consultation with the
Veterans Administration adjudication board and AMVET legal representative
(Exhibit G).
On 6 January 2005, this office received his request to reopen and consider
his case based on previously submitted information (Exhibit G).
_________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice. The applicant contends that his
hypothyroidism caused him to gain weight while on active duty which
resulted in his demotion. However, the BCMR Medical Consultant states that
all possible avenues to help the applicant achieve his weight standards
were explored, and his failures were not solely secondary to the facts of
his medical problems. While his failure to maintain Air Force weight
standards was the basis for his demotion, records indicate new weight
baselines were frequently established and only after repeated failures did
the commander initiate demotion action. In view of this, and since the
applicant demonstrated ability to lose weight during his enrollment in the
Weight Management Program, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of
the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or
injustice. Likewise, since we have determined favorable consideration of
the applicant’s request that his demotion not be removed, his request for
supplemental promotion consideration on this basis is also not favorably
considered.
4. In regard to the applicant’s request to be retired effective 1 November
2001 in the grade of technical sergeant, we note the Secretary of the Air
Force has approved his advancement on the retired list in the higher grade
of technical sergeant upon reaching 30 years of service (2011). We defer
and are in agreement with their recommendation and conclude that no basis
exists upon which to recommend relief in a form greater than which is
already available to the applicant.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of probable 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 14 June 2005 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member
The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 01-
01974 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Jun 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 23 Aug 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 18 Sep 01.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSFM, dated 17 Oct 01.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Oct 01.
Exhibit G. DD Form 149, dated 27 Dec 04.
MICHAEL J. NOVEL
Panel Chair
Promotion eligibility is regained only after receiving an EPR with an overall rating of “3” or higher that is not a referral report, and closes out on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for the next cycle. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. The Chief, Performance Evaluations Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, also reviewed the appeal and notes the Medical Consultant’s review of the applicant’s medical condition. A complete copy of the evaluation...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01988
_________________________________________________________________ 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 received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for his second failure on 5 November 1999, which was...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 31 July 2002 the applicant was released from active duty in the grade of technical sergeant with an effective date of promotion of 2 May 2002 and retired in the same grade on 1 August 2002. Consequently, since the effective date of promotion determines eligibility to receive pay and allowances in that grade, the applicant would not be entitled to back pay and allowances as requested. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03178
The approved body fat standard adjustment did not take place until after the failures and his promotion to the grade of master sergeant had already been rescinded. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. The evidence of record indicates that the applicant was selected for promotion to the grade of master sergeant, but was rendered ineligible to assume the higher grade because of his failure to make satisfactory progress in the...
On 2 May 1996, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened at the request of the First Sergeant to determine the effects of the applicant's knee problems on his progress in the Weight Management Program (WMP). The applicant was ineligible for promotion consideration to the grade of master sergeant during cycle 9737 since his Weight Status Code indicated unsatisfactory progress in the WMP, on or after the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECOD) . The applicant was originally rejected for...
On 20 May 1997, the applicant received an LOR for failure to reduce body fat or weight at the rate described for satisfactory progress in accordance with AFI 40-502, the WMP. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, AFPC/DPPRRP, also reviewed this application and states that the law which allows for advancement of enlisted members of the Air Force, when their active service plus service on the retired list totals...
There is no evidence the decoration was submitted before the date of selections for cycle 00E7. The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPRRP states, in part, that if the Board determines the applicant should be promoted to the grade of master sergeant effective 1 October 2000, they will correct his records to reflect that he held the grade of master sergeant on his last day of active duty and was retired in the grade of master sergeant effective 1 January 2001....
_______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Applicant’s counsel submitted a 21-page Brief of Counsel with 17 exhibits to show that the applicant suffered an injustice when his squadron commander failed to completely implement his medical waiver from participation in the Air Force WMP and, subsequently issued him a LOR for unsatisfactory progress in the WMP resulting in the applicant losing his promotion to TSgt. Doctor D_______ concluded that a...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03407
There were many inconsistencies with the Weight and Body Fat Measurement Program (WBFMP) measurements taken. On 31 Oct 02, applicant voluntarily retired from the Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant for years of service. DPPRRP states on 18 Dec 01, his request for retirement was denied, although there is no indication in his record that his specific request for retirement in lieu of demotion was forwarded to the SAF as an attachment.
_______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was selected for promotion to SSgt twice, but never promoted due to weight problems and placement on the Weight Management Program (WMP), problems that were later determined to be medical in nature (diagnosed with severe narcolepsy). Her section commander subsequently requested reinstatement of her selection that was to be effective 1 Apr 99. ...