RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01586
                                             INDEX CODE:
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXXXXX                        HEARING DESIRED:  No


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  22 November 2005


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records be corrected to show she was medically  discharged  rather  than
discharged because of “Weight Control Failure.”

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her illness was misdiagnosed in 1995.  She struggled with  her  weight  from
that time until she was discharged in 1998.  She could have died  trying  to
run two to three miles at a time and doing aerobics, all  in  an  effort  to
lose weight, not knowing she had a condition that  was  and  is  potentially
fatal.  Since her discharge, the Department of Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)  has
determined and has clearly stated that  her  currently  diagnosed  pulmonary
sarcoidosis was present in January  1995  while  she  was  on  active  duty.
Thus, she should never have been placed in  the  Weight  Management  Program
(WMP) but medically discharged instead.  She would like to be proud  of  her
service, not ashamed.  She did not deserve to be separated  because  of  her
weight.

In support  of  her  application,  the  applicant  provided  copies  of  her
separation document, her DVA rating decision, a statement by her  physician,
and  DVA  medical  records.   A  complete  copy  of  the  application,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30 October 1989, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of six years.  Prior to the time  of  her
enlistment, she underwent a physical examination in  which  her  height  was
recorded  as  5’2¾”  and  her  weight  was  recorded  as  139  pounds.   She
reenlisted on 28 February  1995  for  a  period  of  four  years.   She  was
progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman  (E-4),  effective  and
with a date of rank of 14 April 1992.  During the combined rating period  30
October 1989 to 22 December 1997,  the  applicant  received  eight  Enlisted
Performance Reports (EPRs), in which the promotion recommendations  were  4,
5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, and 3 (downgraded from 5 by the indorser).

The applicant was enrolled in the WMP on 13 March 1995.   Her  entry  weight
was recorded as 191 pounds and her maximum allowable weight was recorded  as
144 pounds.  For failure to make satisfactory progress in the  program,  the
applicant was issued a Letter of Admonishment on 23 May 1997  and  a  Letter
of Reprimand with establishment of an  Unfavorable  Information  File  on  8
September 1997.  In an oral counseling on 23 October  1997  for  failure  to
make satisfactory progress in the program, she was  advised  that  a  fourth
failure to make satisfactory progress  at  her  unit  could  result  in  the
initiation of discharge proceedings.  The  counselor  stated  the  applicant
requested she be processed for discharge at that time.   The  applicant  had
an unsatisfactory weigh-in on 12 December 1997.

On 12 January 1998, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant he  was
recommending she be discharged from the Air Force for Failure in the  Weight
Management Program.  The applicant was advised of her rights in this  matter
and that an honorable discharge would be recommended.  On 15  January  1998,
after being advised of her rights by military legal counsel,  the  applicant
waived her rights to an administrative discharge  board,  to  further  legal
counsel, and  to  submit  statements  in  her  own  behalf.   The  commander
initiated a recommendation for  the  applicant’s  discharge  on  15  January
1998.  In a legal review of the discharge case file, dated 15 January  1998,
the wing staff judge advocate found the  file  was  legally  sufficient  and
recommended the applicant be discharged without the offer of  probation  and
rehabilitation.  On 15 January 1998, the discharge  authority  approved  the
recommended separation and directed the applicant  be  honorably  discharged
without the offer of probation and rehabilitation.

The applicant was  honorably  discharged  on  22  January  1998  because  of
“Weight Control Failure” with a reenlistment eligibility (RE)  code  of  4B.
She had served 8 years 2 months  and  22  days  on  active  duty.   She  was
entitled to receive $17,025.13 of separation pay.

In a rating decision in  August  2002,  the  DVA  initially  denied  service
connection for the condition, Pulmonary Sarcoidosis  with  Congestive  Heart
Failure.  In a rating decision, dated 18 October  2002,  the  applicant  was
granted service connection for Pulmonary Sarcoidosis with  Congestive  Heart
Failure, rated at 100% disabling, and varicose veins, left and  right  legs,
both of which were rated as zero percent disabling.

The remaining  relevant  facts,  extracted  from  the  applicant’s  military
personnel and medical records, and DVA records, are contained in the  letter
prepared by the BCMR Medical Consultant at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommended the application  be  denied.   After
summarizing  the  relevant  facts  contained  in  the  applicant’s   service
personnel and  medical  records  and  her  DVA  records,  the  BCMR  Medical
Consultant indicated that, although  not  definitively  diagnosed  while  in
service,  service  medical  records  clearly  indicate   the   presence   of
sarcoidosis manifested by enlargement  of  the  lymph  nodes  in  the  chest
(hilar adenopathy).  The evidence in the service medical  records,  however,
does  not  show  her  sarcoidosis  involved  her  lungs  to  any  clinically
significant degree while on active duty.  Weight management program  entries
indicated she was participating in a program of  regular  moderate  exercise
and at no time reported her exercise was limited  by  shortness  of  breath.
Other than inability to maintain her weight within Air Force standards,  her
duty performance continued to be excellent until her discharge.

The BCMR Medical Consultant stated the mere  presence  of  sarcoidosis  does
not  automatically  require  a  medical  evaluation  board  or   a   medical
discharge.   Medical  standards  for  continued  military  service  indicate
sarcoidosis is considered potentially disqualifying for  continued  military
service if it is progressive with severe or multiple organ  involvement  and
not responsive to therapy.  At the time  of  her  administrative  discharge,
she  was  not  manifesting   symptoms   suggesting   her   sarcoidosis   was
progressive,  severe  or  involving  multiple  organs   or   was   otherwise
interfering with duty and warranting further evaluation  in  the  disability
system.  Post service records indicate pulmonary symptoms  prompted  her  to
seek care in August 1999, over one year following discharge.

Following a discussion  of  the  responsibilities  set  forth  in  the  laws
governing evaluation, treatment  and  compensation  of  members  and  former
members by  the  Department  of  Defense  and  the  Department  of  Veterans
Affairs, the BCMR Medical Consultant indicated  action  and  disposition  in
this case are proper and equitable  reflecting  compliance  with  Air  Force
directives that implement that law (see Exhibit C).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  7
November 2003 for review and response (Exhibit D).  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 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.  We took notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits  of  the  case.   However,  the
applicant has provided no evidence which, in  our  opinion,  successfully
refutes the assessment of  his  case  by  the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant.
Therefore,  we  agree  with  the  recommendation  of  the  BCMR   Medical
Consultant and adopt his opinion as our findings in this case.   In  view
of the above, we find no basis  to  favorably  consider  the  applicant’s
request.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Lineberger, Member

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-2004-01586
was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Nov 02, with atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dtd 28 Apr 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 May 05.




                                  MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                  Panel Chair