RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2001-01974
		INDEX NUMBER:  131.02
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  27 May 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His administrative demotion be removed and his rank of technical sergeant (E-6) be restored.

2.  He receive supplemental promotion consideration for all missed promotion opportunities.  

3.  He be retired as of 1 November 2001, at the highest promotion grade.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was seriously wronged by the system based on his medical conditions.  In 1990, he was diagnosed with hypothyroidism and shortly thereafter was placed on the Air Force Weight Management Program (WMP).  His hypothyroidism was not checked; however, he was temporarily waived from the WMP after his diagnosis of hypothyroidism was known.  In October 2000, he was administratively demoted to E-5 in accordance with AFI 36-2503, paragraph 17.4, Failure to Keep Fit.  During the period 1990 - 2001, he was unable to test approximately 8 times for advancement due to weight problem and his performance appraisals were also substandard.  

In support of his appeal, applicant submits a chronology of events for the period in question.  The applicant’s submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 31 October 2001 the applicant was released from active duty in the grade of staff sergeant with an effective date of rank of 4 October 2000 and retired in the same grade on 1 November 2001.  He was credited with 20 years and 16 days of total active duty service.  He was credited with 20 years, 3 months and 14 days service for basic pay.  On 18 January 2001, the Secretary of the Air Force approved his advancement on the retired list in the higher grade of technical sergeant (E-6) upon reaching 30 years of service.  

A resume of his last five performance reports are as follows:

	  Closeout Date           Promotion Recommendation

	   11 Oct 96			3
	   11 Oct 97			2(referral)
	   11 Oct 98			3
	   11 Oct 99			3
	   01 Sep 00			2(referral)

The remaining medical relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s medical military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibit C through E.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied.  The BCMR Medical Consultant states that the applicant does not provide convincing evidence that his medical problems were either unfitting or totally responsible for his repeated WMP failures.  His units worked hard to allow him to succeed in the WMP by repeatedly changing his baseline weight when medical profiles indicated the need, but these profiles lapsed when good medical control was gained.  The BCMR Medical Consultant states that all possible avenues to help the applicant achieve his weight standards were explored, and his failures were not solely secondary to the facts of his medical problems.  The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the application be denied.  DPPPWB states that on 27 September 2000, the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent to recommend demotion.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of this notification on the same date.  The demotion was found legally sufficient and on 4 October 2000, the applicant  was demoted from technical sergeant to staff sergeant under the provisions of AFI 36-2503, Administrative Demotion of Airmen, Section A, para 3.4 (Failure to keep fit).  Additionally, DPPPWB states that the applicant became ineligible for promotion consideration to master sergeant for cycles 96E7, 97E7, and 99E7 for making unsatisfactory progress on the WMP.  He was also rendered ineligible for promotion consideration based on referral EPRs closing 11 October 1997 for cycle 98E7 and 1 September 2000 for cycle 00E7.  DPPPWB advises that based on his original date of rank of technical sergeant of 1 March 1991, the applicant was considered for the 94A7, 95A7, and 95E7 cycles and not selected.  The applicant tested for the 00E7 cycle (promotions effective 1 August 2000 - 1 July 2001) and was not selected.  The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D.
AFPC/DPSFM recommends the application be denied.  DPSFM states that after a review of the applicant’s Weight and Body Fat Measurement Program (WBFMP), the applicant was afforded ample opportunity to come within Air Force weight management standards.  The applicant was weighed 47 times while on the program and found to be unsatisfactory on 15 occasions.  The applicant’s commanders granted numerous grace periods when thyroid testing indicated poor control resulting in weigh-in failures.  DPSFM states that the applicant displayed he was capable of making satisfactory progress on several occasions.  DPSFM finds no evidence that the WBFMP was inappropriately administered.  The AFPC/DPSFM evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 26 October 2001, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment (Exhibit F).  

On 26 November 2001, applicant responded by advising this office that he would like to temporarily withdraw his case pending consultation with the Veterans Administration adjudication board and AMVET legal representative (Exhibit G).  

On 6 January 2005, this office received his request to reopen and consider his case based on previously submitted information (Exhibit G).

_________________________________________________________________

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.  The applicant contends that his hypothyroidism caused him to gain weight while on active duty which resulted in his demotion.  However, the BCMR Medical Consultant states that all possible avenues to help the applicant achieve his weight standards were explored, and his failures were not solely secondary to the facts of his medical problems.  While his failure to maintain Air Force weight standards was the basis for his demotion, records indicate new weight baselines were frequently established and only after repeated failures did the commander initiate demotion action.  In view of this, and since the applicant demonstrated ability to lose weight during his enrollment in the Weight Management Program, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Likewise, since we have determined favorable consideration of the applicant’s request that his demotion not be removed, his request for supplemental promotion consideration on this basis is also not favorably considered.  

4.  In regard to the applicant’s request to be retired effective 1 November 2001 in the grade of technical sergeant, we note the Secretary of the Air Force has approved his advancement on the retired list in the higher grade of technical sergeant upon reaching 30 years of service (2011).  We defer and are in agreement with their recommendation and conclude that no basis exists upon which to recommend relief in a form greater than which is already available to the applicant.  

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 14 June 2005 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 01-01974 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Jun 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 23 Aug 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 18 Sep 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPSFM, dated 17 Oct 01.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Oct 01.
    Exhibit G.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Dec 04.