RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03395
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  6 MAY 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation be changed  to  medical  reasons  rather
than Voluntary Release or Transfer to the Air  Force  Reserve  Requested  by
Member, Miscellaneous Personal Reasons.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His  medical  problems  while  in  the  service  required  separation.    He
indicates he did not receive a physical upon separation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 3 February  1976  in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of four years.

On 25 February 1977, the applicant requested separation from the  Air  Force
for being in violation of the Air Force’s Weight  Standards.   He  indicated
since he had been in the Air Force he had a weight problem.  At the time  of
his enlistment he weighed 205 pounds and  after  completing  basic  training
and technical school he did not lose weight.  During  his  in-processing  he
was placed on the Weight Management Program.  His  initial  weight  for  the
program was 205 pounds, during  the  next  few  months  he  failed  to  lose
weight, but in fact, had gained weight.  He was then instructed to  see  the
hospital dietician who gave him a 1200 calorie diet to follow.  After a  few
weeks, he found that the diet was  impossible  to  follow  while  eating  at
Dining Hall 3.  He again saw the Hospital Dietician to receive  approval  to
eat the food on his diet that she prescribed at the hospital.   She  refused
his request.  He  sought  military  and  civilian  medical  help  that  both
offered a diet to follow.  He again failed to lose weight  -  again  due  to
the fact that Dining Hall 3 did not always  have  foods  that  were  on  his
diet.  He asked to be given separate rations of food, but never received  an
answer to his request.  He continued to gain weight.  He  further  indicated
he felt that his problem lied in the fact that his  duties  as  a  policeman
were very tedious and quite boring.  His job as a whole made  him  depressed
and caused him to over eat.  He felt that his level  of  activity,  both  on
and off duty was not enough to lose weight.  He felt it would be better  for
the Air Force and himself, if he were to separate from the service.

The applicant’s commander indicated  based  on  the  applicant’s  overweight
record for the past year, the prognosis for him to  lose  weight  was  poor,
which would result in  further  disciplinary  action.   He  recommended  the
request for discharge be approved.

On 25 March 1977, the base commander approved the  applicant’s  request  for
early release.

On 21  April  1977,  the  applicant  filed  an  application  for  disability
compensation through the Department of Veteran’s Affairs.

On 26 April 1977, the applicant was honorably discharged  in  the  grade  of
airman first class, under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Voluntary Release  or
Transfer to  the  Air  Force  Reserve  Requested  by  Member,  Miscellaneous
Personal Reasons).  He served a total of 1 year, 2 months, and  24  days  of
total active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommended denial  indicating  the  applicant
was discharged due to failure to  meet  weight  standards  and  not  due  to
medical disability.  The applicant  asserts  the  absence  of  a  separation
medical examination was an error that justifies  changing  records  to  show
medical  discharge  due  to  his  knee   condition.    Although   separation
examinations are strongly encouraged by policy (but  not  required  by  law)
members are not held past their established date of separation  if  they  do
not schedule an exam.  However, in this case, an orthopedic examination  one
month prior to separation is more  than  adequate  -  both  in  content  and
proximity to separation to document his knee condition prior to  separation.
 Action and disposition in this case are  proper  and  equitable  reflecting
compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 22 September 2005, a copy of the Air Force evaluation  was  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As of this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   After  reviewing  the  evidence  of
record, we are convinced the applicant’s separation from the Air  Force  was
in accordance with Air  Force  policy.   His  contentions  are  duly  noted;
however, in our opinion,  the  detailed  comments  provided  by  the  AFBCMR
Medical Consultant adequately address these allegations.  Therefore, we  are
in agreement with the comments and recommendation of the Medical  Consultant
and adopt his rationale as the basis for our  decision  that  the  applicant
has not been the victim of either an error or injustice.   In  view  of  the
above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling
basis upon which to recommend favorable action on this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice; the application  was  denied  without  a
personal appearance; and 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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2004-
03395 in Executive Session on 3 November 2005, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Sue A. Lumpkins, Member
                 Mr. James L. Sommer, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 October 2004, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant,
                   dated 21 September 2005.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 September 2005.




                       RICHARD A. PETERSON
                       Panel Chair