RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        28 November 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060001059


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Joyce A. Wright               |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Susan A. Powers               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Dennis J. Phillips            |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his bar to reenlistment be
removed.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that this information did not reflect
an accurate picture.  He did not get proper support from his immediate
supervisor, and a plan for corrective action until 9 January 2005, days
before his bar to reenlistment was initiated.  He was able to meet the
weight control standards on 3 April 2005, due to the plan that was
initiated.  Due to a temporary profile, he was currently unable to correct
the problem of the APFT (Army Physical Fitness Test).  His current profile
was valid until 3 April 2006, at which time he states he will be able to
pass the APFT.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DA Form 4856 (Developmental
Counseling Form), dated 9 January 2005; a copy of his DA Form 8028-R (US
Army Reserve Bar to Reenlistment Certificate); several DA Forms 5500-R
(Body Fat Content Worksheet); a copy of his DA Form 268 (Report to
Suspend Favorable Personnel Action); and two DA Form 705s (APFT
Scorecard), in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the U. S. Army Reserve
(USAR) on 21 April 1983.  He was ordered to active duty for training from
1 September 1983 through 22 December 1983.  He successfully completed basic
combat training and advanced individual training at Fort Leonard Wood,
Missouri.  On completion of his advanced training, he was awarded the
military occupational specialty (MOS), 51B, Carpentry and Masonry
Specialist.  He was promoted to specialist (SPC/E-4) effective 24 January
1987.

2.  The applicant continued to serve in the Reserve and on 9 August 1998,
he reenlisted for 6 years, with an established expiration of term of
service (ETS) of 8 August 2004.

3.  On 5 October 2003, a body fat content worksheet was completed on the
applicant which shows that he failed to meet the body fat standards of 26
percent, in accordance with Army Regulation 600-9.  The applicant's body
fat content was 26.82 percent.

4.  The applicant's records contain a DA Form 268, dated 15 October 2003,
which shows that he was flagged for the Weight Control Program.

5.  On 2 November 2003, another body fat content worksheet was completed on
the applicant.  The applicant was in compliance with the body fat standards
of Army Regulation 600-9.  His maximum body fat allowable was 26 percent
and his percent body fat content was determined to be 25.92 percent.

6.  On 22 February 2004, the applicant was taking an APFT, when three
fourths (3/4) of the way through the run event, he felt pain in his right
leg, possibly pulling a hamstring muscle.

7.  On 16 July 2004, the applicant was issued a temporary profile, due to a
right calf strain, with assignment limitations, of no running and no sit-
ups, and with an expiration date of 31 August 2004.

8.  On 9 January 2005, the applicant was counseled regarding his weight.
He was advised that he was allowed to weigh 186 lbs based on his height of
69 inches.  His body fat content was 30.35 percent and he was only allowed
a body fat content of 26 percent.  He failed to meet the weight standards
based on his height.  He was informed that he would be assigned a squad
leader to provide him with support and to help him understand Army
Regulation 600-9.  The squad leader would help him to create a program of
exercise and weight control that best suited his needs and schedule.

9.  On 27 February 2005, the applicant was administered a "for record APFT"
in which he passed the push-ups and sit-ups and failed the 2-mile run and
was not within body fat standards.  The applicant's body fat content was
28.37 percent on the date of this test.

10.  On 27 February 2005, the applicant was counseled regarding his weight
and APFT.  He was reminded that he was counseled on 9 January 2005 by his
squad leader on the two subjects of weight control and the APFT.  He was
told that progress had been made.  He had lost 9 pounds and 2 percent body
fat but had not improved on his 2-mile run.  An improvement of 4 push-ups
and 2 sit-ups was also noted.  The applicant responded by stating he would
continue to improve and that the 9 January 2005 plan was working.

11.  On 27 February 2005, the applicant's commander initiated a bar to his
reenlistment.  The commander stated in the DA Form 8028-R that the Soldier
had gained 15 pounds in the last 12 months from January 2004 to January
2005 and had gained 21 pounds since being flagged in October 2003.  The
Soldier had also failed an APFT in October 2003 and was flagged.  He had
failed an APFT in February 2004 and in January 2005.  A review of his DA
Form 705 revealed a declining trend in performance.
12.  On the same date, the applicant was given an opportunity to submit a
statement in his own behalf.  The applicant indicated that he did desire to
submit a statement and wrote in his own hand, "additional response to
follow when allowed."  There is no evidence an "additional response"
followed.

13.  On 3 April 2005, the applicant was found to be in compliance with the
Army Body Fat Content Standards and was removed from the Weight Control
Program.  His weight was 219 pounds, with a screening table weight of 192
pounds for his age and category.  His body fat content was 25.92 percent,
which was within regulation standards.  His flag was removed on 4 April
2005.

14.  On 7 May 2005, the applicant was administered a diagnostic APFT in
which he passed all three events.  He was also found to be within body fat
content standards of Army Regulation 600-9.  The applicant's body fat
content had remained at 25.92 percent.

15.  There is no evidence the DA Form 8028-R was processed further until
15 May 2005.  On this date, the applicant's commander, a colonel,
recommended he be barred from reenlistment as a member of the Reserve in
any status or category.

16.  On 15 July 2005, the bar to reenlistment was approved by the commander
of the 81st RRC (Regional Readiness Command), a major general.  The
applicant was advised the bar to reenlistment had been approved, and he
acknowledged this on the same date.  When advised, the applicant indicated
he would appeal the bar to reenlistment.

17.  On 26 September 2005, the applicant submitted an appeal to his bar to
reenlistment.  In his appeal, the applicant requested that the bar imposed
on 1 July 2005, be lifted.  He felt he had a lot more to offer and would be
short changed if he were asked to leave.  He felt that he would be an asset
in a unit that cared about the livelihood of their Soldiers.  He had a
desire to continue in the role as a Soldier.  He wanted the opportunity to
deploy and serve his country. The Army made an investment in him, and he
wanted to have the opportunity to utilize and repay the Army for the
investment they had spent on him.





18.  He continued by stating he felt he had not gotten the proper support
from his immediate supervisor and he felt he was set up for failure based
on certain conditions.  A plan of action was instituted on 9 January 2005
just before the bar
to reenlistment was initiated on 27 February 2005.  When this plan of
action was fully laid out, he was able to meet the standard and be removed
from the Weight Control Program.  When a plan of action was clearly defined
he was able to pass a diagnostic APFT but since then he had not taken one
for record.  He added he would show some medical reasons that had limited
his ability to exceed the standards, which he was sure he could do when he
was at 100 percent.

19.  He stated that he felt he was discarded by his unit and not allowed to
persevere.  If the time lines of the body weight and the APFT failures were
looked at, one would come to the conclusion that a plan of action was
initiated way too late, and when it was instituted, he met the standards in
both weight control and passed the APFT.  He preliminarily summarized that
he should be afforded the opportunity to reenlist and continue and to share
his leadership abilities with Soldiers who could utilize his wisdom.  He
had shown progress of weight loss by getting off the weight control program
and once he got off his temporary profile, he felt he would pass the APFT
with flying colors.

20.  He continued his appeal by stating that according to his Body Fat
Content Worksheet, dated 2 November 2003, he should have come off the
weight control program approximately one month after the flag was
initiated, 5 October 2003.  He met the body fat standards but the flag was
never removed.  He was unable to go to school to get the additional
training needed for promotion.  He was set up for failure when he was asked
to run a for record APFT with a fever in the pouring rain.  He concluded
his appeal by stating that by revoking his bar to reenlistment, he would
continue to provide the wisdom and ingenuity along with the guts it takes
to be in today's Army.

21.  On 14 September 2005, the applicant was issued a temporary profile,
due to foot pain bilateral, with an expiration date of 14 December 2005.
His profile indicated no 2-mile run or sit-ups but as an alternative, the
applicant was allowed to swim and ride a bike.

22.  On 8 January 2006, the applicant was found to be within body fat
standards. His maximum allowable body fat content was 26 percent and on
this date he had a body fat content of 25.58 percent.



23.  The applicant continued to serve until he was released from his troop
program unit (TPU) and was honorably discharged, under the provisions of
Army Regulation 135-178, on 8 May 2006, in the rank of SPC.  The
applicant's discharge orders indicate he was held beyond his normal
discharge date through no fault of his own.

24.  The applicant's Summary of Retirement Points, printed from the Human
Resources Command Integrated WEB Service, Retirement Information Section,
shows he completed 20 years of qualifying service for retirement
purposes.
It also shows that he was issued a 20-Year Letter (Notification of
Eligibility for Retired Pay at Age 60) on 21 June 2006.

25.  An advisory opinion was provided by the Army Reserve G-1,
Headquarters, United States Army Reserve Command (USARC), Fort McPherson,
Georgia, on 26 September 2006.  The opinion states that the applicant
believed he should not have been barred from reenlistment due to his
demonstrated progress in meeting the Army's height/weight and APFT
requirements.  Additionally, the applicant believed he was not afforded the
due process in appealing his bar to reenlistment.  The corrective action
the applicant desired could not be discerned from his application.

26.  The opinion also states that the applicant originally enlisted on
21 April 1983. His last enlistment was 9 August 1998, for a period of
6 years.  On 8 August 2004, the applicant's ETS date, he was ineligible for
reenlistment due to his failure to meet the Army's height/weight and APFT
requirements; however, he had 18 years of qualifying service for
retirement.  Therefore, he was allowed to extend his enlistment in order to
obtain 20 years service for retirement.  He extended for a period of 1 year
and 9 months under the authority of Army
Regulation 140-111, US Army Reserve Reenlistment Program, Table 3-1, Rule
K.  Under the provisions of this rule, a Soldier may be extended to
complete 20 years of qualifying service for retired pay, but the extended
Soldier must be removed from an active status on the first day of the month
following the month in which he or she completes 20 years of qualifying
service, regardless of the term of the extension.

27.  Finally, the opinion states that since the applicant achieved his
20 years of qualifying service on 20 April 2006, his discharge date should
have been 1 May 2006.  Further, his contention that he was not allowed due
process in appealing his bar to reenlistment carried no weight since he was
already ineligible for reenlistment under the provisions of Army Regulation
140-111, Table 3-1, Rule K.
28.  The applicant was provided a copy of this opinion for his
acknowledgement and possible comment prior to consideration of this case
but no response was received within the allotted time.

29.  Army Regulation 600-9 (The Army Weight Control Program) implements the
guidance in DOD Directive 1308.1 which establishes a weight control program
in all the Services.  This regulation applies to all members of the Active
Army, the Army National Guard (ARNG) and the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) to
include those ARNG and USAR personnel in Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) status.
This regulation requires that the body fat composition will be determined
for personnel whose body weight exceeds the screening table weight in Table
1
or when the unit commander or supervisor determines the individual's
appearance suggests that body fat is excessive.

30.  Table 1 of Army Regulation 600-9 is a chart which shows the Weight for
Height Table (Screening Table Weight).  This chart shows that the Screening
Table Weight for a male who is 40 and older and who is 69 inches tall is
186 pounds.

31.  Army Regulation 135-178 establishes the policies, standards, and
procedures governing the administrative separation of enlisted Soldiers
from the Reserve Components.  Paragraph 1-3 states, in pertinent part, that
orders discharging a Soldier would not be revoked or the effective date
changed after the effective date of discharge unless there was evidence of
manifest error or fraud.  After the effective date of discharge, orders can
be amended by the separation authority only to correct manifest error such
as the wrong character of service or to correct administrative errors such
as rank, social security number, or misspelled name.

32.  Paragraph 1-25, of the same regulation, pertains to authority to
approve separation.  It states, in pertinent part, that a Soldier having
completed 18 years, but less than 20 years of qualifying service for
retired pay will not be involuntarily discharged without approval of the
Commander, Army Human Resources Command (AHRC) St. Louis, for USAR
Soldiers, and the Chief, NGB, for Army National Guard (ARNG) Soldiers.

33.  Army Regulation 140-111 (U. S. Army Reserve Reenlistment Program),
Table 3-1, Rule K, states that a Soldier who has completed 18 or more years
of qualifying service for retired pay, but less than 20, is ineligible to
reenlist.  Unless sooner separated for medical or cause, the Soldier may
request and will be extended to complete 20 years of qualifying service for
retired pay before reaching age 60, or a waiver is granted by the
Commanding General (CG), Army Human Resources Command (AHRC).  The terms of
these extensions are limited to the following:  (a) May be extended for not
more than 3 years.  This applies to Soldiers having at least 18, but less
than 19 years of qualifying service
at ETS:  (b)  May be extended for not more than 2 years.  This applies to
Soldiers having at least 19, but less than 20 years of qualifying service
at ETS; and c) The extended Soldier must be removed from an active status
on the first day of the month in which he or she completes 20 years of
qualifying service, regardless of the term of the extension.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence shows the applicant failed to meet the body fat content
standards on 5 October 2003 and was flagged.

2.  On 22 February 2004, he was administered an APFT, and during the APFT,
felt pain in his right leg, possibly pulling a hamstring muscle.  He was
not issued a temporary profile for his injury until 16 July 2004.

3.  The applicant was counseled regarding his weight and APFT.  He was
assigned a squad leader to provide him with support and to create a program
of exercise and weight control that would best suit his needs and schedule.

4.  The applicant was administered a for record APFT in which he passed the
push-ups and sit-ups but was not within body fat standards and he failed
the      2-mile run.  He was counseled on his weight and APFT and indicated
that he would continue to improve and that the plan that had been developed
in January 2005 was working.

5.  The applicant was found to be within body fat standards on 3 April 2005
and was removed from the Weight Control Program.  His flag was removed.  He
was administered a diagnostic APFT in May 2005 and passed all three events.
 He was also found to be within body fat content standards.

6.  On 27 February 2005, a bar to reenlistment was initiated.  The
commander indicated that records showed a declining trend in the
applicant’s performance,

7.  The applicant's bar to reenlistment was held in abeyance until 15 May
2005 before processing it further.  His bar to reenlistment was approved on
15 July 2005.
8.  The applicant appealed the bar by stating that he felt he had a lot to
offer and that he had not been provided the proper support from his
immediate supervisors.  A plan of action had been initiated on 9 January
2005, prior to his bar, and he was able to meet the standards and was
removed from the weight control program.  He felt that he had been unable
to get the additional training and promotion opportunities due to his
weight and APFT.  In conclusion, he felt that he had been set up for
failure and should not have been barred due to his demonstrated progress in
meeting the height/weight and APFT requirements.

9.  An USARC advisory opinion concluded that on the applicant’s ETS date,
8 August 2004, he was ineligible for reenlistment due to his failure to
meet the Army’s height/weight and APFT requirements.  At that time, he had
completed 18 years of qualifying service for retirement and was allowed to
extend his enlistment in order to obtain 20 years service for retirement.
The applicant was extended according to regulatory requirements.  He
achieved 20 years of qualifying service on 20 April 2006, with a scheduled
discharge date of 1 May 2006.  He was discharged on 8 May 2006.

10.  The applicant's extension of his ETS enabled him to complete 20 years
qualifying service for retirement.  When given the extension to complete
20 years service, the bar to reenlistment was moot since the provisions of
AR 140-111, Table 3, Rule K were in effect.

11.  The advisory opinion restates that the applicant's contention that he
was not allowed due process in appealing his bar to reenlistment carries no
authority since he was already ineligible under the provisions of Army
Regulation 140-111, Table 3-1, Rule K; therefore, there was insufficient
evidence to remove his bar to reenlistment.

12.  While the applicant's failure to meet requirements of AR 600-9
contributed to the imposition of the bar to reenlistment, the command
decided he should be barred because he was inconsistent in maintaining his
weight and a declining trend in his performance had been revealed.  The
applicant's appeal stated that he had not received the proper support from
his supervisors.  The evidence indicates otherwise.
13.  It is apparent the applicant believes because he met height and weight
standards of AR 600-9 the bar to reenlistment should be removed; however,
it is evident his command's focus was on the total Soldier and not just one
facet of being a Soldier.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___J____  __SP ___  __DJP___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.




                                  _____John T. Meixell_________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060001059                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061128                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |20060508                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 135-178                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |100                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |

-----------------------
[pic]