| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald J. Weaver | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be awarded two Army Achievement Medals (AAMs) and the Army Good Conduct Medal.
APPLICANT STATES: That, while he was at Fort Irwin, CA, he was on the overweight program. He was only 5 pounds over his allowable maximum weight. He was not allowed to get two AAMs. Even though his name was called in formation for them he could not go up to receive them. Also, he was not awarded his Army Good Conduct Medal. He never failed a physical fitness test. He never had an Article 15 or any type of disciplinary actions for any misconduct. He was an instructor on the Expert Infantryman Badge course. Every instructor received an AAM except him. He received many certificates of achievement from his unit in Germany and a certificate of appreciation from the commanding general of Fort Irwin, CA. He does not see how being 5 pounds overweight can stop his being awarded the medals he deserved. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 September 1981. He was assigned to Germany on or about 19 January 1982. He was awarded the Expert Infantryman Badge on orders dated 28 July 1982. He was promoted to Specialist Four, E-4 on 1 December 1982. He was reassigned to Fort Irwin, CA on or about 9 January 1984.
On 3 March 1984, the applicant was entered into the Army weight control program. At that time he was age 22, 71 inches in height, weighed 219 pounds, and had a body fat percentage of 25.5 percent. (The weight for height table in Army Regulation 600-9 allowed a 22 year old male 71 inches in height to weigh a maximum of 186 pounds. The body fat percentage allowed a male soldier the applicant's age and weight was 22 percent.)
An undated letter from the applicant's commander notified him he was ineligible for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal due to overweight for the period 3 March 1984 to the present. The applicant elected not to make a statement.
Apparently, the applicant was removed from the Army weight control program on an unknown date, then reentered into the program on 14 February 1985. He was again removed from the Army weight control program on 18 June 1985 when his weight was found to be 210 pounds and his body fat percentage to be 22 percent.
The applicant was honorably released from active duty on 27 September 1985.
Army Regulation 600-9 (The Army Weight Control Program) defined "overweight" as when a soldier's body fat percentage exceeded the standard specified in paragraph 20c of this regulation (i.e., 22 percent for a male in age group 21 through 27).
Army Regulation 600-31 (Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions for Military Personnel in National Security Cases and Other Investigations or Proceedings), dated 15 July 1984, provided that soldiers would be flagged (favorable personnel actions would be suspended) when, among other reasons, he or she was entered in a weight control program under Army Regulation 600-9. Four exceptions to not granting favorable personnel actions for flagged soldiers were allowed: (1) reassignment; (2) leave, rest, and recuperation; (3) request for unqualified resignation, discharge, release from active duty, or retirement; and (4) soldiers already enrolled and participating in a professional school and who subsequently entered into a weight control program.
Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, that the Army Achievement Medal is awarded to any member of the armed forces of the United States, who while serving in a noncombat area on or after 1 August 1981, distinguished themselves by meritorious service or achievement. As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.
Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Army Good Conduct Medal is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by their conduct, efficiency and fidelity during a qualifying period of active duty enlisted service. This period is normally 3 years. Although there is no automatic entitlement to the Army Good Conduct Medal, disqualification must be justified. Disqualification for an award of the Army Good Conduct Medal can occur at any time during a qualifying period, requiring a new "beginning date" to be established.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The evidence of record verifies the applicant's contention that he had no record of Article 15s or other disciplinary actions. However, the applicant was (or should have been) flagged for being overweight and entered into the Army overweight control program on 3 March 1984 and finally removed from the program on 18 June 1985.
2. Army Regulation 600-31 required a soldier who was enrolled in an overweight program to be flagged. Army Regulation 600-31 also prohibited a soldier being granted most favorable personnel actions, to include awards and decorations, while flagged. Despite his otherwise good record, it appears the applicant was properly denied the opportunity to be awarded an AAM or the Army Good Conduct Medal.
3. Regrettably, in view of the foregoing there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__lls___ __clg___ __rjw___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003085590 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030805 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Mr. Chun |
| ISSUES 1. | 107.0025 |
| 2. | 107.0056 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019186
On 19 January 2010, the applicants immediate commander initiated separation action against the applicant in accordance with chapter 18 of Army Regulation 635-200 for failing to meet body fat standards, enrollment in the AWCP on 10 August 2009, and failing to make satisfactory progress. A body fat evaluation may also be done by unit personnel to assist in measuring progress. If health care personnel are unable to determine a medical reason for lack of weight lossand if the individual is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9108000
Also, he now requests, in effect, placement on the permanent disability retired list, removal of the enlisted evaluation report (EER) covering the period September 1977-August 1978 as a partial basis for the HQDA bar to reenlistment, and the award of the Good Conduct Medal (6th Award). On 3 April 1989, the Board of Veterans Appeals, indicated that the applicant had active service from May 1970 to April 1972 and from December 1972 to March 1986; that the applicant had a transitory psychotic...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070017781
On 8 February 1987, by endorsement, the applicants immediate commander notified the applicant that he was determined to have exceeded body fat standards of Army Regulation 600-9 (Army Weight Control Program) and that a goal of 3 to 8 pounds of weight loss per month was considered to be satisfactory progress. On 1 August 1987, by memorandum, the applicants immediate commander notified the applicant of his (the commanders) intent to initiate separation action against him (the applicant) in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001181
The effective date of the flag is the date the Soldier was found to be in noncompliance with Army Regulation 600-9 (The AWCP). b. Paragraph 3-2b states that Soldiers not meeting body fat standards after 1 year from the date of entry into the active Army will be entered in the AWCP and flagged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-2 by the unit commander. The evidence of record shows on 3 September 2004, the commander disapproved the applicant's award of the AGCM for the period 9...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011838
The applicant's military personnel records show he enlisted in the Puerto Rico Army National Guard (PRARNG) on 2 December 1987. However, there is no evidence the applicant was recommended for an award based on this incident. There is no evidence to show why the applicant was not promoted from the promotion list dated 30 January 2006.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130010760
He further states the recoupment of his educational assistance costs, as well as his separation, is unjustified for the following reasons: * the failed tape measurement standard was conducted on 21 September 2012 by a student and subject to error and a breach of his privacy * he passed a subsequent tape measurement standard on 31 October 2012 * his name was misspelled, his height was .5 inches shorter, and the calculations were wrong in the October 2012 tape measurement * he believes if one...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022241
The applicant states that he was enrolled in the Army Weight Control Program (AWCP) and met his weight standard on 4 August 2005 in accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 600-9 (AWCP). The applicant provides copies of a DA Form 5500-R (Body Fat Content Worksheet - Male), DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), and DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). AR 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning military...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012408
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The sergeant major informed the applicant that he would not be allowed to attend ANCOC due to his failure to meet the standards of AR 600-9 and would subsequently be demoted to the grade of E-6 based upon his conditional promotion. The applicant did not provide evidence to show, and his records do not indicate that his medical condition required processing through a Medical Evaluation Board (MEBD).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020630
The applicant states: * his discharge under chapter 18 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separation) due to overweight was improper * he was unjustly discharged from the Army for failing to meet the body fat standards of Regulation 600-9 (Army Weight Control Program (AWCP)) * his chain of command failed to follow the provisions of the regulation prior to separating him * he should have been medically evaluated to determine if he should have been medically separated due to an injury he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010596
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. b. his first request was denied because he was counseled by his company commander for being in an overweight program and she was going to try and bar him from reenlistment. If the commanders decision remains the same, the commander will forward his or her statement, the individuals statement, and his or her consideration for permanent filing in the individuals Official Military Personnel File (currently the Army Military Human...