RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00063 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her selection for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) 
effective 1 October 2001, be reinstated. In addition, her 
reentry (RE) code of “2X” (first-term, second-term, or career 
airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the 
Selective Reenlistment Program) be changed to “4D” (grade is 
senior airman or sergeant, completed at least nine years’ Total 
Active Federal Military Service, and has not been selected for 
promotion to staff sergeant), so she can return to active duty or 
join the Air Force Reserve or Air National Guard. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

Her promotion to staff sergeant was withheld, not taken away. 
She had a pending medical diagnosis prior to her promotion 
effective date. The physician was unable to complete his 
research of the diagnosis and she was unjustly forced out of the 
Air Force during the Date of Separation Rollback Program in 2004, 
because her reenlistment was denied. Since her discharge, she 
has been diagnosed with a medical condition by a civilian 
provider that is comparable with the preliminary diagnosis from 
her military provider. 

 

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides two personal 
statements and copies of a character reference, promotion 
reinstatement package, medical documentation, and an information 
paper concerning Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS). 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 19 July 1995, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force 
at the age of 18 in the grade of airman basic (E-1). She was 
progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4) 
effective 2 January 1998. She was placed in the Weight 
Management Program (WMP) in January 2001 after a six-month 
profile for pregnancy expired. She was considered and 


tentatively selected for promotion to staff sergeant during cycle 
01E5. She received a promotion selection number which would have 
incremented on 1 October 2001. In September 2003, she received a 
Letter of Reprimand and had an Unfavorable Information File 
established for failure to maintain Air Force weight and body fat 
standards. On 26 September 2001, she was notified that her 
commander was withholding her promotion to staff sergeant in 
accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-2502, after her second 
unsatisfactory weigh-in on 27 September 2001. She remained 
ineligible for promotion consideration for cycles 02E5 and 03E5 
based on her continued failure to maintain weight/body fat 
standards. She was ineligible for promotion consideration for 
cycle 04E5 based on her denial/non-selection for reenlistment. 
These actions led to her placement in Reenlistment Eligibility 
Code “3B” (first or second term or career airman ineligible to 
reenlist, ineligibility condition no longer exists). On 22 March 
2004, she received notification that her Enlisted Performance 
Report for the period 2 August 2003 through 27 February 2004 was 
referred due to her not meeting fitness standards. On 2 April 
2004, her supervisor initiated an AF Form 418, Selective 
Reenlistment Program Consideration, not recommending the 
applicant for reenlistment, citing her failed fitness status in 
the almost three year enrollment in the Weight Body Fat 
Management Program (WBFMP). On 4 April 2004, her commander 
concurred with the recommendation and non-selected the applicant 
for reenlistment. The applicant acknowledged the commander’s 
decision on 6 April 2004 and indicated her intent to appeal; 
however, she did not turn in an appeal by the established appeal 
date. 

 

The applicant was discharged effective 9 December 2004 with a 
separation code of “JBK” (completion of required active service) 
and an RE code of “2X.”. She served 9 years, 4 months, and 
21 days on active duty. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denying the applicant’s request to change 
her RE code. DPSOA states the applicant has provided no evidence 
of error or injustice; nor did she provide any evidence to 
support a change to her RE code. 

 

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOE defers to the recommendation of DPSIMC (office of 
primary responsibility for the WBFMP). Should the Board find in 
favor of the applicant’s request regarding reinstatement of her 
line number and give her a favorable reenlistment code, they 
could direct, if and when she reenters active duty, that her 
grade be senior airman with a projected promotion to staff 
sergeant with a date of rank of 1 October 2001. Since the 


applicant never attended Airmen Leadership School before 
discharge, her promotion would need to be placed in a “withhold” 
status pending completion of Professional Military Education. 

 

The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

AFPC/DPSIM indicates that due to the applicant’s failure to 
submit sufficient documentation from her WBFMP file, they assume 
the WBFMP was administered in accordance with Air Force 
Instruction 40-502. 

 

The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 26 June 2009, for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit F). As of this date, this office has received no 
response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s 
request for reinstatement of her promotion to staff sergeant and 
a change in her reentry code. The BCMR Medical Consultant finds 
insufficient evidence to support or justify a change in the 
applicant’s reentry code. With regard to her request for 
restoration of her promotion to staff sergeant, the BCMR Medical 
Consultant acknowledges there has been an appearance of 
irregularities committed; however, unless the applicant is 
allowed to resume her military service via a change in reentry 
code, restoration of her rank would serve no measurable purpose. 

 

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit G. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation was forwarded to 
the applicant on 18 September 2009, for review and comment within 
30 days (Exhibit H). 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 an injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case, and while we conclude there may have been 
some questions concerning the timeline of events relevant to the 
applicant’s weigh-ins under the WMP, we are not convinced her 
commander’s decision to not select her for reenlistment or the 
subsequent RE Code given at the time of her discharge were 
inappropriate. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the 
relief sought in this application. 

 

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 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 1 December 2009, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 


The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2009-00063: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Dec 09, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 9 Mar 09. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 18 Jun 09. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, not dated. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jun 09. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 14 Sep 09. 

 Exhibit H. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Sep 09. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair