RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00857
		INDEX CODE:  111.01

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1. Her Officer Performance Report rendered for the period 4 January 1992 through 3 January 1993 be amended as follows:

	  Section V, Line 3:  Change the Professional Qualities Rating to MEETS STANDARDS.

	 Section VI, Line 8:  Delete comment “--she is diligently working on a weight control program”

	  Section VI, Line 9:  Delete entire entry.

	  Section VII, Line 1:  Delete entire entry.

2. Remove referral memorandum, dated 12 January 1993, and her rebuttal letter, dated 21 January 1993, from her records.

By amendment, applicant requested the following:

3. Her Officer Performance Report rendered for the period 4 January 1992 through 3 January 1993 be amended as follows:

	 Section VI, Line 8:  Delete comment “--she is diligently working on a weight control program”.  Add comment “--superb planner and manager, select for SOS in residence”.

	 Section VI, Line 9:  Delete entire line.  Add --Key contributor to successful AFROTC Field Training camp--“great job”…“Well done!”

	 Section VII, Line 1:  Delete entire entry.  Add comment “--Strong leadership/communication skills right out of the gate-resident SOS a must”.

By a second amendment, the applicant indicates that if her original requests (#1 and #2) are granted, she will submit an application to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) requesting #3 be granted as indicated above.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She received a referral report and referral letter by entering into the first unsatisfactory period of the weight management program (WMP).  She entered Phase 1 (Initial Entry and Body Fat Loss Period) of the WMP in September 1992; however, the referral OPR comment on unsatisfactory progress (failure to lose 2 percent body fat each month) was included due to the change in measurements.  On 21 December 1992, she elected to undergo cosmetic surgery.  900ccs or approximately 3 pounds of body fat was removed.  The surgery was prior to the closeout date of the referral OPR.  As of 7 November 1992, she had lost 4% body fat in 2 months.  Her rebuttal letter accompanied the referral OPR for review.  Despite issues raised (i.e., unsatisfactory results occurred during a menstrual cycle, a more accurate “body fat scan” showed my body fat at 30.3% circumference method showed 34%), the Physician’s Assistant used a “special number to calculate the body fat scan result due to the mineral content of her bone structure as genetics of Hispanics and other minorities make it difficult to conform to a circumferential measurement, etc., her supervisor’s rating remained unchanged.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, OPR, closing 3 January 1993, referral letter, dated 12 January 1993, AF Form 108, Weight Program Processing, dated 2 December 1992, and other documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of Captain.

The applicant’s Weight and Body Fat Management Program (WBFMP) file is not available.

The applicant’s available history of Individual Record for Weight Management and Fitness Improvement Training Program (Phase I) is at Exhibit A. 

According to the WMP documents provided by the applicant, in addition to the available records, the following information was obtained:

	  After receiving diet counseling, a review of her medical records indicates on 10 March 1992, she was seen for a weight evaluation.  She was 64.5” tall, weighed 158 ¼ pounds, and her maximum allowable weight (MAW) was 147.

	  A 17 March 1992 medical evaluation indicated the applicant weighed 162 pounds and her MAW was 147.

	  A 23 April 1992 entry in her medical records indicates that she weighed 163 pounds.

It was planned that she would enter into the WMP and exercise program.  She was also scheduled for diet counseling.

On 2 September 1992, she was enrolled in the Weight Management Program (WMP).  She weighed 160 ¼ pounds, had a body fat of 36%; the body fat standard is 28%.

On 2 October 1992, she was evaluated and weighed in at 160 pounds, with body fat of 34%.

On 2 November 1992, she was evaluated and weighed 156 pounds, with body fat of 32%.  The weight processing report indicates that the applicant was overweight by 11 ½ pounds and exceeded body fat by 4%.

On 2 December 1992, she was evaluated and weighed 161 pounds, with a body fat of 34%.

On 21 December 1992, the applicant underwent suction assisted lipectomy of the hips, thighs, abdomen, flanks, and inner thighs.  In total, approximately 900ccs of fat were removed during surgery.

On 11 January 1993, her commander delayed her January 1993 weight and body fat determination until 8 February 1993.

On 12 January 1993, applicant received a Referral OPR because of the “Does Not Meet Standards” rating in Item 3, of Section V, Performance Factors.

OPR profile since 1992 follows: 

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

		      * 3 Jan 93       Does Not Meet Standards (Referral OPR)
			 3 Jan 94		Meets Standards
			 3 Jan 95		      (MS)
			 3 Jan 96		      (MS)
			 3 Jan 97		      (MS)

			 3 Jan 98		      (MS)
			20 Feb 98	Training Report (TR)
			 3 Jan 99		      (MS)
			 3 Jan 00		      (MS)
			 3 Jan 01		      (MS)

* Contest Report 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSFM recommended denial.  They indicate that the applicant failed to prove an injustice occurred.  Specifically, she failed to prove the documented unsatisfactory period was in error.  Her chain of command followed the governing directives that were in effect in 1993.  Her senior rater was well within his purview and the Air Force Policy when he mandated documentation on her OPR for failure to progress in the weight management program (WMP).

The Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial.  They state that the applicant was placed on the Weight Management Program (WMP) on 2 September 1992.  She maintained body fat standards until her December weight in.  When the member’s OPR closed out she was in Code 2 (Unsatisfactory Progress) on the Weight Management Program.  The applicant contends because of a number of factors (menstrual cycle, a perceived more accurate “body fat scan,” and the genetics of Hispanics) her evaluation should not reflect unsatisfactory ratings/comments.  However, the rater referred the report to the applicant on 12 January 1993.

The applicant states she underwent elective Suction Assisted Lipectomy of the hips, thighs, abdomen, flanks, and inner thighs prior to the closeout date of the OPR.  The surgery, on 21 December 1992, was after she was identified as making unsatisfactory progress and she was not weighed or measured in January to accommodate the convalescent time.  Additionally, she underwent a water submersion test on three separate occasions.  However, these tests were also after the closeout date of the report.

The applicant is now requesting the referral comments be removed and substituted with revised comments.  The revised comments refer to the member as a superb planner and manager, a key contributor, with strong leadership and communication skills, and include a recommendation for PME.  The applicant did not provide statements from the evaluators supporting the changes.

Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  The applicant did not provide any evidence that she was erroneously placed on the Weight Management Program (WMP); that she was not making unsatisfactory progress when the report closed out; or that the evaluators have reconsidered their initial assessment.  Therefore, the report is not considered erroneous or unjust.  

The Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided a response, with attachments, that is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommended denial.  He indicates that the applicant failed to establish that the OPR now in question was in any way invalid at the time of its writing, and, indeed, in her response to the referral, noted that adherence to WMP standards and measurements by the body circumference method was applicable and not contested at that time.  Rather than seeking quantification by the immersion technique of measurement, the applicant chose to have excess body fat removed by surgical means, finding out later that this had little, if any, effect on her measurements or weight.  It was only then that she sought out the immersion technique which, at this late stage, cannot be expected to tell the whole story of what was happening some two years prior.  The applicant provides no clear and incontrovertible evidence that she did not exceed weight and body fat standards that led to her referral OPR, and compliance with her present request cannot be favorably recommended.  In spite of this initial OPR, she has been promoted at least twice, the result of the Major Selection Board in June of this year not being known from her current records.

The evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and provided a response, with attachments, that is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice warranting her OPR closing 3 January 1993 be amended.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant contends that she received a referral report and referral letter by entering into the first unsatisfactory period of the weight management program (WMP).  The applicant entered the WMP in September 1992 and while she initially made satisfactory progress in Phase 1 of the program in October and November 1992, in December 1992, she gained 2% body fat, thereby constituting an unsatisfactory progress period.  In accordance with the AFR in effect at the time, it appears that the rating chain did not exceed their authority when they noted this unsatisfactory performance on the contested report.  Applicant’s contentions pertaining to hydrostatic testing are duly noted; however, after an exhaustive review of the evidence provided, we agree with the Air Staff assessments concerning this matter, especially those of the BCMR Medical Consultant, and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusions that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden of establishing the existence of either an error or an injustice warranting favorable action on these requests.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 01-00857 in Executive Session on 6 March 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	            Panel Chair
	            Member
	            Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 March 2001, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSFM, dated 15 May 2001.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 5 June 2001.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 June 2001.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 9 July 2001.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated
               13 December 2001.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 December 2001.
   Exhibit I.  Letter , Applicant, dated 11 January 2002,
		       w/atchs.

					   
					   Panel Chair