Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2001-01974
Original file (BC-2001-01974.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       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



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0100097

    Original file (0100097.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2003-01988.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | 0203063

    Original file (0203063.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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

    Original file (BC-2002-03178.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9702125

    Original file (9702125.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9903015

    Original file (9903015.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0102559

    Original file (0102559.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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....

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0100366

    Original file (0100366.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _______________________________________________________________ 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

    Original file (BC-2005-03407.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0101234

    Original file (0101234.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _______________________________________________________________ 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. ...