RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02510
                                       INDEX CODE:  112.10
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                      COUNSEL: NONE

      XXXXXXXXX                         HEARING DESIRED:  UNKNOWN


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  13 February 2007


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge, separation program designator  (SPD)  code  and  reenlistment
eligibility (RE) code be changed to permit his entry  into  the  Reserve  or
National Guard.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 28 September 1984, his commander  at  Eielson  Air  Force  Base,  Alaska,
allowed him a weight allowance waiver  of  240  pounds  due  to  the  excess
weight he put on from lifting weights under the  unit’s  mandatory  exercise
program.   When  his  commander  left  Alaska  and  was  replaced,  his  new
commander rescinded the waiver and  placed  him  in  the  Weight  Management
Program (WMP) in June 1986 with a maximum  allowable  weight  (MAW)  of  196
pounds.   He  continued  with  his  struggle  to  maintain  his  weight  and
eventually was demoted and recommended for an administrative  discharge  for
failure to maintain his MAW.  His fifth failure in the WMP indicated he  was
11 ¼ pounds over his MAW; however, his commander weighed him  in  his  boots
and field jacket.  All of his performance reports were excellent  and  never
stated anything derogatory towards his  appearance  until  his  last  report
which was directed by  his  commander  for  discharge  proceedings  and  was
written as such.  During this same time period, a Reduction  in  Forces  was
taking place.  He eventually gave up and accepted the discharge  because  he
was very disappointed that this was happening to him.  He was  not  informed
by his Area Defense Council that he would be ineligible  for  enlistment  in
the Reserve or National Guard.  He has  regretted  his  discharge  ever  day
since.

In support of his application, the applicant provides a personal  statement,
copies of his weight management documentation, and copies of  his  last  six
enlisted performance reports.  The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 22 January 1979, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  at  the
age of 18 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a  period  of  four  years.
Following his completion of basic training, he was  trained  as  an  Airlift
Aircraft Maintenance Technician. He was progressively promoted to the  grade
of staff sergeant (E-5) effective and with a  date  of  rank  of  1  October
1984.  He received 11 enlisted performance reports between  22 January  1979
and 21 January 1988 with overall ratings of 8, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9,  9,  9,  9,
and 6.

Between 10 October 1986 and  26  October  1987,  the  applicant  received  a
Letter of Counseling and three Letters of Reprimand for failure to  progress
in  the  WMP.   On  11  December  1987,  the   applicant   had   his   fifth
unsatisfactory weight check resulting  in  his  demotion  to  the  grade  of
sergeant (E-4) effective 14 January 1988.

On 22 January 1988, his commander notified the applicant that he  was  being
recommended for discharge due to his unsatisfactory  performance,  exceeding
weight standards,  according  to  Air  Force  Regulation  39-10,  under  the
provisions  of  paragraph  5-26f.   On  25 January   1988,   the   applicant
acknowledged receipt  and  after  consulting  with  counsel,  he  offered  a
conditional  waiver  of  the  rights  associated  with   an   administrative
discharge board hearing contingent  on  his  receipt  of  no  less  than  an
honorable discharge if the recommendation for his  discharge  was  approved.
The Staff Judge Advocate found the case legally sufficient  on  24  February
1988  and  recommended  acceptance  of  the  conditional  waiver   for   the
applicant’s discharge with an honorable characterization of service  without
probation or rehabilitation  (P&R).   On  26 February  1988,  the  discharge
authority accepted the conditional waiver  and  directed  the  applicant  be
honorably discharged without P&R  The  applicant  was  discharged  effective
4 March 1988 with a honorable  characterization  of  service,  a  separation
code of HFT (Exceeding Air Force Weight Standards) and a reentry code of  2c
(involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge).  He served  9  years,
1 month, and 13 days on active duty.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states that the  applicant’s  discharge
was consistent with the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements  of  the
discharge  regulation  and  was  within  the  discretion  of  the  discharge
authority.  The applicant did not  provide  any  evidence  or  identify  any
errors or injustices that occurred in  the  discharge  process.   The  DPPRS
evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant  on  2
September 2005 for review and response within 30 days (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 error or injustice.  The applicant did not  provide  persuasive
evidence showing the information in the discharge case file  was  erroneous,
his substantial rights were violated, or that his  commanders  abused  their
discretionary authority.  The RE and SPD codes  which  were  issued  at  the
time of the applicant’s separation accurately reflect the  circumstances  of
his separation and we do not find these codes to be in error or unjust.   In
view of the foregoing, we conclude  that  no  basis  exists  upon  which  to
recommend favorable action on his request that they be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of 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 23 February 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
                 Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2005-02510:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Aug 05, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 24 Aug 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Sep 05.




                                   LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                   Panel Chair