RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  4 April 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070017781 


	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.


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Mr. Mohammed R. Elhaj

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Eric N. Anderson

Chairperson

Mr. Peter B. Fisher

Member

Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann

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 discharge from the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) be voided. 

2.  The applicant states that he was discharged from the USAR because of his weight; but at the time of his discharge, he had a medical condition that was not evaluated or considered by the USAR. 

3.  The applicant provided the following additional documentary evidence in support of his application:

a.  DA Form 4836 (Oath of Extension of Enlistment or Reenlistment), dated 11 August 1985.

	b.  Lewis Medical Clinic, Disability Certificate, dated 28 April 1987.

	c.  Medical Invoice/Bill, dated on an unknown date in 1987. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant’s records show that he was inducted into the Army of the United States on 3 February 1971.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 76V (Equipment Storage Specialist).  He was honorably separated and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Annual Training) on 24 January 1973. 


3.  The applicant’s records further show that he enlisted in the USAR on 1 November 1975 and subsequently executed a series of extensions and/or reenlistments in the USAR including a 1-year reenlistment on 2 February 1977, a 1-year reenlistment on 2 February 1978, a 3-year reenlistment on 17 January 1982, a 6-year reenlistment on 18 October 1984, and a 9-month extension on 8 December 1985.  The highest rank/grade he attained during his military service was staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6.  He was assigned to the 395th Combat Support Hospital, Gary, Indiana.

4.  The applicant’s awards and decorations include the Army Commendation Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, and the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16).  

5.  On 7 July 1986, the applicant was issued a temporary physical profile for neck pain, for a period of 30 days. 

6.  On 20 September 1986, during a periodic medical examination, the applicant weighed 239 pounds.  The military doctor remarked that the applicant's weight was too high.

7.  On 22 December 1986, the Acting Commander, 595th Combat Support Hospital, issued the applicant a Letter of Reprimand for failure to maintain professional military appearance and bearing, among other failures.  The Acting Commander remarked that on 7 December 1986, during a service uniform inspection, the applicant was in his utility uniform and indicated that he had outgrown his service uniform.  The Commander further stated that the applicant appeared to be overweight and directed that he participate in a unit weigh-in on 10 January 1987.  

8.  On 7 January 1987, by memorandum, the applicant’s immediate commander requested a medical evaluation be conducted in view of the applicant’s failure to lose weight.  

9.  On 10 January 1987 and on subsequent dates, at the age of 35, the applicant participated in several monthly unit weigh-ins as follows:








Weigh-In Date
Height and Weight
Max Weight Allowed
Gain or Loss
Actual Body Fat %
Max Body Fat %
% Over/ Under
10 Jan 87 
68”/245 lbs
179 lbs
0
27.93%
24.00%
3.93%
8 Feb 87
68”/245 lbs
179 lbs
0 lbs
Not Avail
24.00%
Not Avail
8 Mar 87
68”/245 lbs
179 lbs
0 lbs
Not Avail
24.00%
Not Avail
4 Apr 87
68”/241 lbs
179 lbs
-4 lbs
Not Avail
24.00%
Not Avail
3 May 87
68”/245 lbs
179 lbs
+4 lbs
29.23%
24.00%
5.23%
Jun 87
No Weigh-in





12 Jul 87
68”/245 lbs
179 lbs
0 lbs
29.86%
24.00%
5.86%
9 Aug 87
68”/239 lbs
179 lbs
-6 lbs
30.04%
24.00%
6.04%


10.  On 8 February 1987, by memorandum, the Chief, Professional Services, 337th General Hospital, USAR Center, Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana,  responded to the applicant’s immediate commander and stated that the “cause of the over weight is not due to medical condition.”  The Chief further recommended a weight reduction program.

11.  On 8 February 1987, by endorsement, the applicant’s 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.  The immediate commander further stated that failure to make satisfactory progress or achieve the body fat standard could result in the applicant’s separation from the Army.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the memorandum on the same day.  

12.  The applicant’s weight fluctuated after the notification.  He remained at 245 pounds in February and March 1987 and although he lost 4 pounds in April 1987, he regained the same weight in May 1987.  He also continued to exceed both weight standards and body fat standards.   

13.  On 1 August 1987, by memorandum, the applicant’s immediate commander notified the applicant of his (the commander’s) intent to initiate separation action against him (the applicant) in accordance with paragraph 4-25 of Army Regulation 135-178 (Enlisted Administrative Separations) for failure to make satisfactory progress to meet body fat standards in accordance with Army Regulation 600-9.  The immediate commander further notified the applicant that he was suspending the separation action for 45 days to give the applicant the opportunity to consult with counsel, appear and present his case before an administration board, be represented by counsel at any hearing, submit statements on his own behalf, or waive his rights in writing.   The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification  

14.  There is no indication in the applicant’s records that show subsequent to his acknowledgement of receipt of the notification of intended separation he took any action as mentioned in the notification memorandum.

15.  On 2 September 1987, the immediate commander submitted a request through the 334th Medical Group, Grand Rapids, Michigan, and the Commander, 123rd Army Reserve Command, Fort Benjamin, Harrison, Indiana, to the Commander, Fourth U.S Army, Fort Sheridan, Illinois, requesting the applicant’s discharge from the USAR effective 30 September 1987, in accordance with paragraph 4-25 of Army Regulation 136-178 for failure to comply with weight standards of Army Regulation 600-9.

16.  On 9 September 1987, the intermediate commander, 334th Medical Group, recommended approval of the applicant’s discharge.  

17.  On 17 September 1987, the Military Personnel Officer, Headquarters, U.S. Army Reserve Command, Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, recommended approval of the discharge and forwarded the separation action to the Commander, Fourth United States Army.  

18.  On 25 September 1987, the separation authority approved the recommendation for the applicant’s separation and directed that the applicant receive an Honorable Discharge Certificate.  Accordingly, Headquarters, Fourth U.S. Army, Fort Sheridan, Illinois, published Orders 162-2 ordering the applicant’s honorable discharge from the USAR effective 25 September 1987, in accordance with Army Regulation 135-178.

19.  Army Regulation 135-178, in effect at the time, established policies, standards, and procedures governing the administrative separation of enlisted Soldiers of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.  Paragraph 2-3 stated that the enlisted member will be notified in writing by the immediate commander when required under a specific reason for separation.  It also stated that the notification procedure will be used for separation under this chapter.  It lists the individual's due process rights, as the right to consult with and be represented by counsel, to appear before an administrative separation board, to waive the above rights and to withdraw said waiver prior to the separation authority's action. Paragraph 4-25 provided that members who fail to meet the weight control standards set forth in Army Regulation 600-9 may be separated per this paragraph when such condition is the sole basis for separation.  The service of those separated per this chapter will be characterized as honorable, unless an uncharacterized description of service is required for Soldiers in entry-level status.

20.  Army Regulation 600-9 (dated 10 June 1987-in effect at the time) established policies and procedures for the implementation of the Army Weight Control Program (AWCP).  It stated in pertinent part that Soldiers are responsible for meeting the standards prescribed in this regulation.  To assist Soldiers in meeting these responsibilities, screening tables were prescribed for use.  A five percent zone below the screening table weight ceiling is suggested as a help to Soldiers in targeting their personal weight at a level which will minimize the probability of exceeding the screening table weight ceiling as a matter of habit.  Soldiers should be coached to select their personal weight goal within or below the five percent zone and strive to maintain that weight through adjustment of life style and fitness routines.  If a Soldier consistently exceeds the personal weight goal, he or she should seek the assistance of master fitness trainers for advice in proper exercise and fitness; and health care personnel for a proper dietary program.  In other words, exceeding a properly selected goal should “trigger” the Soldier to use the substantial help available to alter the fitness and dietary behavior before confronting the finality of the screening table and initiation of official action if the body fat standards are exceeded. 

21.  Routine weigh-ins will be accomplished at the unit level.  Percent body fat measurements will be accomplished by company or similar level commanders (or their designee) in accordance with standards.  A medical evaluation will be accomplished by health care personnel when the Soldier has a medical limitation, or is pregnant, or when requested by the unit commander.  One is also required for soldiers being considered for separation due to failure to make satisfactory progress in a weight control program.  The Height/Weight Screening Table for male and female Soldiers is as follows:

Weight For Height Table/Screening Table Weight
Male-Age Group
Female-Age Group
Height
17-20
21-27
28-39
>40
17-20
21-27
28-39
>40
67
165
169
174
176
145
149
154
159
68
170
174
179
181
150
154
159
164
69
175
179
184
186
154
158
163
168

22.  The maximum allowable percent body fat standards are as follows.  However, all personnel are encouraged to achieve the more stringent Department of Defense (DOD)-wide goal, which is 20 percent body fat for males and 26 percent body fat for females:

Maximum Allowable % Body Fat Standard
Age Group
Male
Female
17–20 years
20%
30%
21–27 years
22%
32%
28–39 years
24%
34%
40 & Older
26%
36%

23.  If health-care personnel discover no underlying or associated disease process as the cause of the condition and the individual is classified as overweight, these facts will be documented and the individual entered in a weight control program by the unit commander.  Suspension of favorable personnel actions will be initiated for personnel in a weight control program.  The required weight loss goal of 3 to 8 pounds per month is considered a safely attainable goal to enable Soldiers to lose excess body fat and meet the body fat standards. Weigh-ins will be made by unit personnel monthly to measure progress.  A body fat evaluation may also be done by unit personnel to assist in measuring progress.  As an exception, an individual who has not made satisfactory progress after any two consecutive monthly weigh-ins may be referred by the commander or supervisor to health care personnel for evaluation or reevaluation.  If health care personnel are unable to determine a medical reason for lack of weight loss—and if the individual is not in compliance with the body fat standards and still exceeds the screening table weight, the commander or supervisor will inform the individual that progress is unsatisfactory and he or she is subject to separation.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Body-fat standards are have been used by the Army since the 1980s to prevent obesity and motivate good fitness habits.  These standards are used to determine initial qualification for enlistment and/or accession and also to determine whether or not a Soldier continues to meet required standards after joining the Army.  Military members are periodically weighed and measured throughout their career.  Those found to be over their body-fat limits are entered into a mandatory weight loss program.  Those who fail to maintain required body-fat standards are subject to administrative sanctions which can include reprimands, denial of promotions, administrative demotion in rank, and even administrative discharge.

2.  The weight table is a screening tool.  Just because a Soldier exceeds the weight on the table does not mean that Soldier is overweight.  Soldiers who exceed the weight indicated for their age/height on the table are measured for body-fat content using procedures in Army Regulation 600-9.  Soldiers who are found to be within Army Body-Fat standards are not considered overweight. Soldiers who exceed the weight tables are measured for body-fat. Those who exceed the Army body-fat standards are enrolled in the Army Weight Management Program (AWMP).  The specific objectives of the AWCP are to ensure combat readiness and good military appearance as well as long-term health.  Those in the weight management program must lose between 3 and 8 pounds per month until they meet body-fat standards.  Those who fail to make satisfactory progress are subject to involuntary discharge.
3.  With respect to the applicant’s administrative separation, evidence of record shows that the applicant was properly identified by his chain of command as exceeding the Army weight and body fat standards for his gender and age group and he was properly placed into a weight control program.  The applicant acknowledged that he exceeded the Army standard and had to lose weight and body fat.  However, he failed to meet the body fat standards set forth in Army Regulation 600–9.  

4.  With respect to the applicant’s medical condition, there is no evidence in the available record and the applicant did not provide any evidence that shows his overweight condition was due to a medical condition.  Evidence of record further shows the applicant was diagnosed by health care personnel as not having a medical condition that precluded participating in the Army body fat reduction program and that the cause of the over weight was not due to medical condition. Accordingly, he was subject to involuntary separation. 

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__ena___  __pbf___  __jcr___  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.



							Eric N. Anderson
______________________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
YYYYMMDD
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.