RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2009-01359
                                             INDEX CODE:  106.00
                                        COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  under  honorable  conditions  (general)  discharge   be   upgraded   to
honorable.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He  was  discharged  for  exceeding  the  weight  standards  of  the  Weight
Management Program (WMP).  He never failed a fitness test and it  is  unjust
to give him a less than honorable discharge for failing to  maintain  weight
when he was passing the fitness test and doing his job.  There was  a  class
action suit several years later concerning the validity of the  WMP  but  he
did not fit into the time frame of the class  action  suit.   Upgrading  his
discharge is the right thing to do.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on  16 March 1984  and
served  continuously  as  an  electronic  computer  and   switching   system
specialist until his discharge.  On 2 August 1990, he was  notified  of  his
commander’s intention to recommend  him  for  a  general  discharge  due  to
unsatisfactory performance – exceeding weight standards; specifically:

      a.  His entry into Phase I of the WMP on 6 September 1988 due  to  his
being 13 pounds in excess of  his  maximum  allowable  weight  (MAW)  on  18
August 1988.


      b.  Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 17  November  1988,  due  to  his
first WMP failure for being 18 pounds over his MAW on 16 November 1988.


      c.  LOR, dated 21 November  1989,  and  Unfavorable  Information  File
(UIF) entry due to his second WMP  failure  for  being  24 pounds  over  his
adjusted MAW on 25 October 1989.


      d.  LOR, dated 1 May 1990, UIF entry, and  placement  on  the  Control
Roster due to his third WMP failure for being 28.5 pounds over his  adjusted
MAW on 25 April 1990.  Additionally, his noncommissioned officer status  was
vacated due to his multiple WMP failures and  his  repeated  indications  to
his supervisors and subordinates that he was malingering and using  the  WMP
to gain an early discharge from the Air Force.


      e.  LOR, dated 1 August 1990, and UIF entry  due  to  his  fourth  WMP
failure for being 25 pounds over his MAW on 6 July 1990.

The commander informed the applicant of his rights,  to  include  presenting
his case to an administrative discharge board, and on 2 August  1990,  after
consulting with counsel, he waived his right  to  present  his  case  to  an
administrative discharge board and to submit statements in his  own  behalf.
On 3 August 1990, the Staff Judge  Advocate  recommended  the  applicant  be
discharged with a general  discharge  and  not  be  afforded  probation  and
rehabilitation opportunities.

On 9 August 1990, the applicant  was  discharged  in  the  grade  of  senior
airman (E-4) for unsatisfactory performance –  exceeding  weight  standards,
with a general service characterization.  He completed a total of  6  years,
4 months, and 24 days of active service.

The applicant’s Airman Performance Report  (APR)  and  Enlisted  Performance
Report (EPR) profile follows:

            PERIOD ENDING                    EVALUATION

              14 Apr 1985                          9 (firewall)
              14 Apr 1986                          9
              14 Apr 1987                          9
              14 Apr 1988                          9 (firewall)
              15 Feb 1989                          9
              14 Aug 1989                          9 (firewall)
              31 Mar 1990                          4
              18 Jul 1990                          2 (referral)

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation  (FBI),
Clarksburg,  WV,  has  indicated  that  they  are  unable  to  identify  the
applicant with an arrest record.

On 1 June 2009, a request for post-service information was forwarded to  the
applicant for response  within  30  days;  however,  as  of  this  date,  no
response has been received by this office (Exhibit C).

________________________________________________________________

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.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we  find  no
evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in  the  discharge  process.
Based on the available evidence of record,  it  appears  the  discharge  was
consistent with the substantive requirements  of  the  discharge  regulation
and within the  commander's  discretionary  authority.   The  applicant  has
provided no evidence that would lead us to believe the  characterization  of
the service was contrary to the  provisions  of  the  governing  regulation,
unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed.  We  considered
upgrading the discharge based  on  clemency;  however,  in  the  absence  of
documentation pertaining to  his  post-service  accomplishments,  we  cannot
conclude that it is warranted.  Therefore, we find no basis  upon  which  to
recommend granting the relief sought.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of  material  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  Docket  Number  BC-2009-01359
in Executive Session on 10 November 2009, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

            Mr. -------------, Vice Chair
            Mr. -------------, Member
            Ms. -------------, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

            Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Apr 09.
            Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
            Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Jun 09, w/atch.




                                   -----------
                                   Vice Chair

      of Military Records