RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03760
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  11 JUN 08

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His honorable discharge be changed to a medical retirement.

2.  The years subsequent his discharge be included as credible service.

3.  His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of his discharge he was not medically stable.   He  states  that
he should have been put on  medical  profile  and  a  medical  review  board
should have been involved in his discharge processing.

In support of his request, the applicant  provided  a  personal  letter  and
Department of Veterans Affairs Rating Decisions.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty on  16  February  1993  and  served  as  a
heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration journeyman.

On 23 March 2001, applicant was notified by his commander of her  intent  to
recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the  provisions  of
AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.65, Failure in the Weight  and  Body
Fat Management Program (WBFMP).  The specific reasons for  this  action  are
as follows:  On 28 December 1999, he was initially placed in the WBFMP.   At
that time, he weighed 206 pounds with a body fat measurement  of  26%.   His
maximum allowable weight was 186.5 pounds and  his  maximum  allowable  body
fat measurement was 24%.  On 31 May 2000, he  failed  to  make  satisfactory
progress in Phase I of the WBFMP in that he  failed  to  lose  the  required
5 pounds or 1% body fat since his previous weight check  on  28 April  2000.
For this failure he received a Letter  of  Counseling  (LOC).   On  2 August
2000, he failed to make satisfactory progress in Phase I  of  the  WBFMP  in
that he failed to lose the required  5 pounds  or  1%  body  fat  since  his
previous weight check on 28 June 2000.   For  this  failure  he  received  a
Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR).   On  8  November  2000,  he  failed  to  make
satisfactory progress in Phase I of the WBFMP in that he failed to lose  the
required 5 pounds or 1% fat since his previous weight check  on  10  October
2000.  For this failure he received an LOR and  an  Unfavorable  Information
File (UIF) was  established.   On  16  February  2001,  he  failed  to  make
satisfactory progress in Phase I of the WBFMP in that he failed to lose  the
required 5 pounds or  1%  body  fat  since  his  previous  weight  check  on
12 January  2001.   He  was  advised  of  his  rights  in  this  matter  and
acknowledged receipt of the notification.  The applicant consulted  counsel,
waived his right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board,  and
elected not to submit statements on his own behalf.  In a  legal  review  of
the case file, the acting  staff  judge  advocate  found  the  case  legally
sufficient and recommended he be honorably discharged without probation  and
rehabilitation.  The discharge authority concurred with the  recommendations
and directed that he be discharged with an honorable  discharge.   Applicant
was discharged on 30 March 2001.  He served 8 years, 1 month and 14 days  on
active  duty.  He  was  assigned  RE  code  4B  which   denotes   "Separated
(honorable) for exceeding body fat standards."

On 24 February 2004, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military  Records
(AFBCMR) considered and denied the applicant’s request  that  his  narrative
reason for discharge be changed to psychological  reasons  and  that  he  be
reinstated back on active duty in the grade of staff sergeant (Exhibit B).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The BCMR Medical  Consultant
states the applicant’s service medical records  document  a  stable  medical
condition, high blood pressure, not interfering with military duties and  at
the time of separation manifested no evidence of end organ damage  (such  as
stroke, renal failure, or heart failure).  The premature contractions  noted
on  examination  immediately  prior  to  the  applicant’s   discharge   were
asymptomatic  and  otherwise  produced  no  physical  impairment   of   duty
performance for the period of one year prior to discharge.  An EKG  obtained
at the time of separation documents a normal sinus rhythm  without  evidence
of heart disease warranting  evaluation.   The  applicant  himself,  in  his
separation  history  (DD  Form  2697),  asserts  no   impairment   of   duty
performance.  Contrary to the applicant’s assertion, a  separation  physical
exam by a physician was performed and is  well  documented  in  the  medical
record.  Based on physically unimpaired duty performance for  the  one  year
period prior to separation and  the  benign  findings  on  separation  exam,
there was no cause to place the applicant on medical hold or refer  him  for
a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).  The  development  of  medical  conditions
following  separation  is  not  a  reason  to  grant   military   disability
compensation.  Action and disposition in this case are proper and  equitable
reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 27 October 2006, the  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for
review and comment 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 an error or injustice.  We see no evidence of an error in  this
case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation  provided  in  support
of his appeal, we do not believe that the applicant has been the  victim  of
an injustice.  We are not persuaded  by  the  evidence  presented  that  the
actions taken by his commander to affect his discharge and separation  codes
were improper or contrary to the provisions of  the  governing  regulations.
For an individual to be considered under the  disability  evaluation  system
there must be a medical condition so severe that it prevents performance  of
any work commensurate with grade.  In this case, we find no evidence that  a
qualifying medical condition existed at the time which  rendered  him  unfit
for continued service or unable to perform his assigned duties.   Therefore,
we  agree  with  the  opinion  and  recommendation  of  the  AFBCMR  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.  In the  absence
of evidence to the contrary, we find no  basis  to  recommend  granting  the
relief sought.

4.    The applicant's case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not  been
shown that a personal appearance with or  without  counsel  will  materially
add to our understanding of the issues  involved.   Therefore,  the  request
for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or an 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-2005-
03760 in Executive Session on 5 December 2006, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
                 Ms. Glenda H. Scheiner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Dec 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 26 Oct 06.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Oct 06.





                       MICHAEL V. BARBINO
                       Panel Chair