RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02656
		INDEX CODE:  100.06

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4B be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 27 Apr 98, she weighed in at 160 pounds.  She was eight (8) pounds under her maximum allowable weight.  Therefore, it is her opinion that she should not have been entered into the Weight Management Program (WPM).

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided documentation from her military personnel records.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 Nov 97 for a period of four years in the grade of airman basic.

On 14 Sep 99, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was recommending that she be discharged for failure in the Weight Management Program.  The specific reasons for this action were:

	a.  On or about 27 Apr 98, she weighed 160 pounds and measured 29 percent body fat.  The maximum allowable body fat for a female 29 years old and younger in the Air Force was 28 percent.  She received a medical evaluation on 28 Apr 98, dietary counseling on 13 May 98, and she entered a mandatory 90-day exercise program on 28 May 98.  On or about 15 May 98, she weighed 152 pounds and measured 27 percent body fat.  Because she met body fat standards after having initially been identified as overfat and during her medical evaluation, her commander placed her in Phase II of the WMP immediately upon entering her in the WMP on 15 May 98.  Because her body fat percentage exceeded Air Force standards, thereby necessitating her entry in the WMP, she received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) on 28 May 98.

	b.  On or about 17 Sep 98, she failed to lose the required three pounds or one percent body fat.  She weighed 163 pounds and measured 29 percent body fat, which was an increase of 11 pounds and four percent body fat since her previous weigh-in on 17 Aug 98 (first unsatisfactory period).  Because her body fat percentage exceeded Air Force standards, she received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) on 21 Sep 98 and she was reentered into Phase I of the WMP effective 17 Sep 98.

	c.  On or about 20 Oct 98, she was entered into Phase II of the WMP.  Less than six months later, on or about 3 Mar 99, she failed to lose the required three pounds or one percent body fat.  She weighed 165 pounds and measured 29 percent body fat, which was a two-pound loss and a one percent body fat increase since her previous weigh-in on 19 Jan 99 (second unsatisfactory period).  Because her body fat percentage exceeded Air Force standards, she received an LOR on 16 Mar 99, an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) was established on 16 Mar 99, and she was reentered into Phase I of the WMP effective 3 Mar 99.

	d.  On or about 12 Apr 99, she failed to appear at her scheduled, mandatory weigh-in.  As a result, she received an LOC on 13 Apr 99.  A copy of the LOC was placed in her existing UIF on 7 May 99.

	e. On or about 20 Apr 99, she failed to lose the required three pounds or one percent body fat.  She weighed 169 pounds and measured 30 percent body fat, which was an increase of four pounds and one percent body fat since her previous weigh-in on 3 Mar 99 (third unsatisfactory period).  As a result, she received an LOR on 5 May 99 and was placed on the Control Roster on 13 May 99.  The LOR was placed in her existing UIF on 13 May 99.

		f. On or about 10 May 99, she failed to appear at her scheduled, mandatory weigh-in.  As a result, she received an LOR on 17 May 99.

		g. On or about 20 May 99, she failed to lose the required three pounds or one percent body fat.  She weighed 168 pounds and measured 31 percent body fat, which was a one-pound loss and a one percent body fat increase since her previous weigh-in on 20 Apr 99 (fourth unsatisfactory period).  Although this was technically her fourth unsatisfactory performance in the WMP, on 26 May 99, her commander elected not to use this adverse body fat measurement as the impetus for initiating an involuntary separation action.

		h. On or about 1 Jul 99, she failed to lose the required three pounds or one percent body fat.  She weighed 183 pounds and measured 34 percent body fat, which was an increase of 15 pounds and three percent body fat since her previous weigh-in on 20 May 99 (fifth unsatisfactory period).

		i. On or about 16 Aug 99, she failed to lose the required three pounds or one percent body fat.  She weighed 185 pounds and measured 37 percent body fat, which was an increase of two pounds and three percent body fat since her previous weigh-in on 1 Jul 99 (sixth unsatisfactory period).  As a result, she received an LOR on 17 Aug 99.

The applicant was advised of her rights in the matter and that an honorable discharge would be recommended.

In a legal review of the discharge case file, dated 28 Sep 99, the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate found the file was legally sufficient and recommended that the applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge.  

The discharge authority approved the discharge action on 1 Oct 99 and directed that the applicant be furnished an honorable discharge.

On 29 Oct 99, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Weight Control Failure) and furnished an honorable discharge.  She was assigned an RE code of 4B (Separated (honorably) for exceeding body fat standards).  Applicant had served 1 year, 11 months, and 18 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSFM recommended denial indicating that a review of the applicant’s Weight and Body Fat Management Program (WBFMP) documentation revealed that her unit properly administered the WBFMP and correctly entered the applicant in the program following the 27 Apr 98 weight and body fat measurement.  The body fat standard for a 29 year old female is 28 percent.  While the applicant did meet weight standards on 27 Apr 98, she exceeded her body fat standard by one percent.  Therefore, the commander was correct in placing the applicant in the WBFMP.  All mandatory actions were taken to ensure the program was administered properly and fair.  The commander acted within his authority when recommending the applicant for discharge after giving her 15 months to get herself within Air Force standards, and following seven periods of unsatisfactory progress.  According to AFPC/DPSFM, the applicant was properly entered in the WBFMP and failed to meet Air Force standards after 15 months.  The commander pursued all administrative avenues to get the applicant within standards prior to his decision to discharge her.  The RE code of 4B was correct.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSFM is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE recommended denial indicating that a review of the applicant’s records revealed that she received the proper RE code of 4B (Separated honorably for exceeding body fat standards).  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 22 Nov 02 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  The applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and her contentions were duly noted.  However, we do not find the applicant’s uncorroborated assertions or the documentation presented sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR).  The evidence of record indicates that the applicant was involuntarily discharged for exceeding body fat standards.  There is no indication in the evidence provided that the applicant’s discharge was improper or contrary to the provisions of the discharge directive under which it was effected.  As a result of her discharge for exceeding body fat standards, the applicant was assigned an RE code of 4B.  It appears that the code was appropriately assigned and accurately reflected the circumstances of her separation, and, we find no evidence to indicate the assigned RE code was in error.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s request that her RE code of 4B be changed.  We believe it should be pointed out to the applicant that her RE code of 4B is one that, based on the needs of the respective military service, can be waived by the enlistment authorities.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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 01-02656 in Executive Session on 14 Jan 03 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Sep 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSFM, dated 4 Sep 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 12 Nov 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Nov 02.