RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01006
		INDEX NUMBER:  111.02
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

All Enlisted Evaluation Reports (EPRs) rendered on him beginning with the report closing 24 Feb 94 and ending with the report closing 24 Jan 00 be voided and removed from his records.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested reports do not reflect his true performance due to a medical condition.  Due to his medical condition, he was unfairly rated, which had a direct impact on his ability to progress in rank and to be awarded decorations.

In support of his appeal, applicant provides a medical statement, copies of his EPRs, both contested and uncontested, and a copy of his earlier appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is presently serving on active duty in the grade of TSgt (E-6).  A resume of the applicant’s last ten EPRs follows:

	  Closeout Date				Overall Rating
	   *24 Feb 94					4
	   *24 Feb 95					4
	   *24 Feb 96					4
	   *29 Aug 96					4
	   *29 Aug 97					4
	   *24 Jan 98					4
	   *24 Jan 99					5
	   *24 Jan 00					4
	    01 Aug 00					5
	    06 Jul 01					5

*   Reports contested by applicant

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the evaluations prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force found at Exhibits C, D, and E.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that the applicant’s medical condition caused his weight gain that resulted in administrative consequences adversely affecting his career.  He recommends that the Board consider this when reviewing the applicant’s request.

The applicant was diagnosed with a benign tumor of the pituitary gland in Jan 98 that was surgically removed one year later.  The endocrinology specialist caring for the applicant reports that the tumor has been present for several years and was the cause of the applicant’s inability to lose weight.  The applicant contends that his symptoms of fatigue, headache, and inability to lose weight reduced his duty performance and thus the career progression he contends he would have achieved had he not suffered from the tumor.  He points to his stellar performance reports prior to 1993 and after 1999 as evidence that his potential career achievement was denied him by his disease.

It can be concluded that the applicant’s difficulty with weight management was due to his prolactinoma.  The fact that the prolactinoma was not diagnosed for several years after he began the weight management program is not surprising based on the relative lack of symptoms and insidious nature of the condition.  Had he not been in the weight management program, his condition would not have been suspected and diagnosed until more serious complications such as visual impairment occurred.  Another issue is whether there were other symptoms affecting his duty performance other than his weight.  There are no medical entries to suggest any.  

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  The applicant did not prove that the reports are unjust.  The applicant contends that his medical condition hindered his duty performance beyond his control, specifically stating that his weight became an issue.  However, there is no mention of a weight problem in any of his reports.  

The rating chain tasked with assessing the applicant’s performance on each of the individual performance reports rated him based on the performance they observed.  Nothing has been provided to indicate their assessments were not fair and accurate.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPWB evaluated the impact of the contested reports on the applicant’s promotion opportunities.  They defer to AFPC/DPPPEP on the issue of removing the reports.

Based on their review, even if the applicant had the maximum weighted score of 135.00, his total score would have been below cutoff for promotion.  The applicant was ineligible for cycle 99E6 due to unsatisfactory progress on the weight management program.  Also, if the Board were to remove all the applicant’s EPRs between 1994 and 2000, the applicant would not have an EPR weighted score for cycle 00E6 and would be considered nonweighable.  However, as an exception to policy and if the Board so directed, applicant’s EPR with a closeout date of 1 Aug 00 could be applied to cycle 00E6, which would make him a select for this cycle.  

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluations.  In response to the statement made by AFPC/DPPPEP that his EPRs do not contain any mention of a weight problem, the applicant states that all of the contested EPRs are marked down in Section III, Item 3, “How well does ratee comply with standards.”  He indicates that many times the comments on the backside of an EPR fail to explain the markings on the front.  The applicant also discusses the verification of his medical condition and why he was not initially aware of the impact of his illness on his performance.

In regard to his ineligibility for cycle 99E6 due to making unsatisfactory progress on the weight management program, he indicates that he should have never been medically cleared for the program, rendering him eligible for cycle 99E.  He requests that if the Board confirms this that he be given supplemental promotion consideration.  He also requests that due to his mental fogginess at the time of testing that a current test be applied to his previous testing cycles.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit G.

___________________________________________________________________

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 warranting the removal of five of the eight reports that the applicant requests be removed from his records.  While acknowledging that the applicant suffered from a medical condition that may have impacted his performance, in the opinion of the Board, the five EPRs closing   24 Feb 94, 24 Feb 95, 24 Feb 96, 24 Jan 99, and 24 Jan 00 overall favorably rated the applicant’s performance and do not differ significantly from earlier reports which he has not contested.  Although the applicant maintains that his medical condition precluded him from meeting weight standards or performing to a level documented in the reports previous to those contested, we are not persuaded that the contested reports, as written, do not fairly and accurately assess his performance.  We note that if the applicant’s medical condition had been diagnosed earlier, he could still be entered into the weight management program, but qualify for a medical deferral from phase I.   A medical deferral would not have relieved his supervisors from the responsibility to accurately evaluate his performance.  Although former members of the applicant’s rating chain indicate that had they known that the applicant was suffering from a medical condition that they would have rated him higher, they do not indicate why the reports, as written, are now inaccurate.  We also note the statement of one of his previous raters, “The enlisted performance reports in question were written factually about his daily performance.”  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we cannot recommend granting this portion of the relief requested.

3.  Notwithstanding the above conclusions, we do find sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting removal of the EPRs closing out 29 Aug 96, 29 Aug 97, and 24 Jan 98 and to make him eligible for promotion consideration during the 99E6 cycle.  We note that according to the BCMR Medical Consultant, the applicant was diagnosed with a benign tumor of his pituitary gland in January 1998 and that the endocrinology specialist caring for him reported that the tumor had been present for several years and was the cause of his inability to lose weight.  In light of this, we believe that the applicant should have been medically deferred from the requirement to lose weight during this period and should not have been ineligible for promotion consideration during cycle 99E6 due to unsatisfactory progress on the weight management program.  The Board further notes that the EPRs closing out 29 Aug 96, 29 Aug 97 and 24 Jan 98 reflect lower ratings in Section III, Item 3, “How well does ratee comply with standards?” than the other contested reports.  Although the reports do not contain specific comments regarding the applicant’s weight problems, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that these ratings were influenced by the applicant’s weight problems.  Therefore, we recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

1.  The following Enlisted Performance Reports, AF Form 910s, rendered on him for the periods indicated be declared void and removed from his records.

	  a. EPR, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 25 February 1996 through 29 August 1996.

	  b. EPR, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 30 August 1996 through 29 August 1997.

	  c. EPR, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 30 August 1997 through 24 January 1998.

2.  In January 1998, he was granted a medical deferral from Phase I of the weight management program and he was eligible for promotion consideration to the grade of technical sergeant during cycle 99E6.

It is further directed that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) beginning with cycle 99E6.

If selected for promotion to technical sergeant by supplemental consideration, he be provided any additional supplemental consideration required as a result of that selection.

If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated to the issues involved in this application that would have rendered the applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information will be documented and presented to the Board for a final determination on the individual’s qualifications for the promotion.

If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the records shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date.

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02-01006 in Executive Session on 9 October 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Mar 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated
                 6 May 02.
     Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 30 May 02.
     Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 4 Jun 02.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 14 Jun 02.
     Exhibit G.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 10 Sep 02, w/atchs.

                                   

AFBCMR 02-01006

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to XXXXXXXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX, be corrected to show that:

		1.  The following Enlisted Performance Reports, AF Form 910s, rendered on him for the periods indicated be, and hereby are, declared void and removed from his records.

		        a.   Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 25 February 1996 through 29 August 1996.

		        b.   Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 30 August 1996 through 29 August 1997.

		        c.   Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 30 August 1997 through 24 January 1998.

		2.  In January 1998, he was granted a medical deferral from Phase I of the weight management program and he was eligible for promotion consideration to the grade of technical sergeant during cycle 99E6.

	It is further directed that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) beginning with cycle 99E6.

	If selected for promotion to technical sergeant by supplemental consideration, he be provided any additional supplemental consideration required as a result of that selection.

	If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated to the issues involved in this application that would have rendered the applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information will be documented and presented to the Board for a final determination on the individual’s qualifications for the promotion.

	If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the records shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date.