RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03407
            INDEX CODE:  131.09
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

      MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 11 May 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His grade of master sergeant be reinstated.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 30 Jan 03, he was unjustly demoted to the  grade  of  technical  sergeant
for "failure to keep fit."  He was willing to attain  physical  fitness  but
his leadership failed to factor his willingness into their decision.   There
were many inconsistencies with the Weight and Body Fat  Measurement  Program
(WBFMP) measurements taken.  AFI  40-502,  clearly  states  to  take  weight
measurements before 1000 hours or  as  early  in  the  shift  as  reasonably
possible for shift  workers.   He  had  approximately  seven  weigh-ins  and
measurements after 1000 hours.  As a dayshift worker, by  the  time  he  was
measured he had already exercised, had a snack and  75%  of  his  shift  was
over.  The instruction states the Fitness  Center  Director  must  designate
two to three of the staff to augment the Health and Wellness  Center  (HAWC)
to assist  in  body  fat  measurements.   There  was  inconsistency  in  his
measurements  as  there  were  10  different   individuals   measuring   him
throughout the WBFMP.  The Instruction states WBFMP managers  will  schedule
an appointment with the Medical Treatment Facility for exercise and  dietary
education no more than 15 days from the date  a  member  is  identified  and
over  body  fat.   He  was  not  scheduled   until   25   days   after   his
identification.

The letter notifying him of his  demotion  identifies  four  failures  which
initiated the demotion process.  What was identified as his  fourth  failure
was not a failure and what was identified as his fifth failure was  actually
his fourth failure.  His commander did  not  consider  his  entire  military
record in determining if demotion was appropriate.  His 19  months  of  diet
and exercise logs show that he was  willing  and  putting  forth  tremendous
effort to meet Air Force standards.  Applicant believes his  case  file  did
not receive the appropriate level of visibility  as  he  did  not  have  the
support of his commander and first sergeant.  As a result of  his  inability
to meet the standards he  was  forced  to  request  retirement  in  lieu  of
administrative demotion.  His request  for  retirement  via  AF  Form  1160,
Military Retirement Actions, was not accurate and  his  case  file  was  not
forwarded along with his request.  Because item  14b  is  marked  "attached"
and his attachments were not itemized in the remarks  section  as  required,
he believes his entire package was  not  submitted.   He  appealed  and  his
appeal was denied.  The  procedures  for  disapproval  of  his  appeal  were
violated because he  was  not  allowed  a  personal  appearance  before  the
appellate authority.

Applicant states in accordance with procedures outlined in AFI 36-3203,  his
commander should have prepared a stop loss waiver letter  and  submitted  it
along  with  his  retirement  application  to  support  his  request   since
discharge was his next course of action.

In  support  of  his  request  applicant  provided  a  personal   statement,
documentation associated  with  the  WBFMP  participation  in  the  program,
documentation associated with his request for  retirement,  his  performance
reports, character references, and photographs.   His  complete  submission,
with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  17
Sep 80.  He was progressively promoted to  the  grade  of  master  sergeant,
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank  of  1  Oct  00.
Data extracted from documentation provide by the applicant reflects  he  was
identified as being over body fat (BF)  on  21  Oct  99.   He  received  his
medical evaluation on 1 Dec 99 and dietary counseling was  completed  on  13
Jan 00.  He was entered into Phase I of the WBFMP on 13 Apr 00.   His  entry
weight was 231 lbs (37 lbs over his maximum  allowable  weight)  with  a  BF
percentage of 33% (BF standard was 24%).

On 27 Sep 01, he was notified by his  commander  that  he  was  recommending
that he be demoted to the grade of  technical  sergeant.   The  reasons  for
this action were his unsatisfactory progress in the WBFMP for which  he  was
reprimanded three times.  Applicant did not concur with the  recommendation,
consulted counsel and submitted an application for  retirement  in  lieu  of
demotion along with a request for an Active Duty Service  Commitment  (ADSC)
waiver.  On 18 Dec  01,  the  Director,  Air  Force  Review  Boards  Agency,
determined his retirement was not in the best interest of the Air Force  and
disapproved his request.  He was demoted to the grade of technical  sergeant
with a date of rank of 30 Jan 02.  His appeal  to  8  AF/CC  was  denied  on
25 Mar 02.  On 31 Oct 02, applicant voluntarily retired from the  Air  Force
in the grade of technical sergeant for  years  of  service.   He  served  22
years, 3 months, and 13 days on active duty.

On 20 Jan 06, the Secretary of the Air Force  Personnel  Council  determined
that he served satisfactorily in the grade of master sergeant  and  directed
he be advanced to that grade on the retired  list  upon  completion  of  all
required service on 17 Sep 2010.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPF recommends denial.  DPF states AFI 40-502, outlines the  procedures
for taking weight and height measurements and stipulates they must be  taken
before 1000 or as early in the shift as possible for shift  workers.   There
is no evidence to substantiate when the weight and height measurements  were
taken and the AFI does not stipulate when BF  measurements  must  be  taken.
From 21 Oct 99 until his final weigh-in on 6 Sep 01, he only lost 7 lbs  and
5% BF.   Furthermore,  it  is  key  to  note  that  the  applicant  and  his
supervisor acknowledged each measurement taken, either on the  AF  form  108
or the AF Form 393.  He was properly cleared by the medical authority  prior
to entering the program and his case  file  gives  no  indication  that  the
entire program was jeopardized, either by inconsistencies, the delay in  the
medical evaluation, or diet counseling.

The DPF evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial of his request for reinstatement of  promotion
to master sergeant.  DPPPWB states the actions taken by his  commander  were
in accordance with policies and procedures.

The DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPRRP recommends denial.  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.  The SAF decision could  have  been  solely  based
upon STOP  LOSS  or  upon  the  ADSC  waiver  request  of  the  request  for
retirement in lieu  of  demotion.   DPPRRP  cannot  speculate  how  the  SAF
arrived at their decision.  On 29 Jun 02, he requested a retirement date  of
1 Nov 02.   On  31  Oct  02,  he  held  the  grade  of  technical  sergeant;
consequently, he was retired in that grade in accordance with 10 USC  §8961.


The DPPRRP evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded to the evaluations and provided a synopsis of the  daily
routine involved during his monthly weigh-ins.  Applicant  notes  that  some
of  the  AF  Forms  108  contain  missing  signatures  and  reiterates   his
contention concerning the fact that the AFI makes it clear on  limiting  the
amount of people to help HAWC personnel.  Applicant adds that  the  AF  Form
393 is an individual history record which basically derives its  information
from each AF Form 108.  The statement he made concerning the  two  to  three
month delay being entered into the WBFMP may have changed  everything.   His
request for retirement in lieu of demotion and the ADSC waiver  was  at  the
time of the September 11 terrorist attack thus STOP  LOSS  was  placed  into
effect.  Had he entered the program earlier as he should have,  his  request
for retirement in lieu of demotion and  the  ADSC  waiver  would  have  been
during normal peace time prior to the September 11  attack.   After  passing
six consecutive weigh-ins or measurements, meaning an individual can  either
lose or gain weight but must maintain  a  BF  percentage  of  24%  or  lower
during those six months, a member is removed from the  WBFMP  in  accordance
with AFI 40-502, paragraph 14.4.2.3.  On 27 Nov 00, he  weighed  in  as  225
lbs with a BF of 24%.  It was decided that the December  weigh-in  and  tape
measuring would not be accomplished because of the  holiday  season.   On  3
Jan 01, he weighed in at 220 lbs with a BF of 28%.  If he  would  have  been
at 24% he would have been off the program.  Instead,  that  counted  as  his
third failure.  The tape measuring as part of the WBFMP was inconsistent.

In response to the SAF/MRBP memorandum, applicant states his  commander  did
not overlook the prior two failures because he used  them  as  part  of  the
four failures to initiate demotion action.  It was  not  that  the  failures
were overlooked, AFI 40-502 states that unless the individual is in  WSC  3,
the promotion line number can not be reinstated, meaning that if he did  not
make the September 2000 BFP he had to retire.  His commander was  not  going
to let him extend even though at the time high  year-of-tenure  for  an  E-6
was 22 years.  It is inappropriate to say he permitted his BFP to  climb  to
28%, having lost 5 pounds.  This particular failure was key to  his  failure
rather than success while on the WBFMP.

His complete responses, with attachment, are at Exhibit G and I.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing  law  or
regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an injustice warranting corrective action.  The  applicant  was
notified of his commander's intent to recommend his demotion  to  the  grade
of technical sergeant as result of unsatisfactory  progress  in  the  Weight
and Body Fat  Management  Program  (WBFMP).   He  subsequently  submitted  a
request for retirement in lieu of demotion along with a request for an  ADSC
waiver.  His request was determined not to be in his  best  interest  or  in
the best interest of the Air Force and denied.  After a thorough  review  of
the evidence of record, we find no improprieties in the  applicant's  weight
management case file.  However, we  note  that  during  the  course  of  the
applicant's participation  in  the  WBFMP,  there  appeared  to  be  various
periods where he at times met, and at other times did  not  meet  standards.
This suggests to this board that his problems may  have  been  physiological
in nature rather than attitudinal.  We are aware  that  the  Air  Force  has
struggled with developing a fair and  equitable  weight  management  program
over the years.  Evidence provided shows he was able to complete a  26  mile
marathon during the period in question which in our opinion  shows  evidence
of his physical conditioning and leads us to  believe  the  difficulties  he
experienced may not have occurred under existing WBFMP standards.   In  view
of the above, and giving weight  to  other  potentially  mitigating  factors
which may not have  received  proper  consideration,  such  as  his  lengthy
service and overall record of performance throughout his career, we  do  not
believe the decision to deny his request for retirement in lieu of  demotion
as an "incentive to adopt a healthier  lifestyle"  is  justifiable.   Again,
finding no errors in his weight management case  file,  it  is  our  opinion
that the appropriate corrective action in this case would be to correct  his
record to show that  he  was  retired  in  the  grade  of  master  sergeant.
Accordingly, we recommend his records be corrected as indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 1 November 2002, he as retired  in
to the grade of master sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2005-
03407 in Executive Session on 2 May 06, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:


      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair


      Mr. John E.B. Smith

      Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Nov 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPF, dated 19 Dec 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 12 Jan 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 20 Jan 06.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Feb 06.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Mar 06.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 22 Mar 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, Dated 4 Apr 06, w/atch.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair

AFBCMR BC-2005-03407




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 1 November 2002, he was
retired in the grade of master sergeant.






                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency