RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2002-03431
		INDEX CODE 110.02
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for his discharge be changed so that his Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits can be reinstated.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged under the Weight Management Program (WMP) and was denied VA benefits. The Air Force’s weight standards at the time were not consistently applied and different standards were enforced at different units.  His height and maximum weight were changed several times. His unit commander changed and her standards were different than the previous commander’s.  When he attempted to purchase his first home, he discovered he was not entitled to VA benefits.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 Feb 86. His entrance exam reflected he was 69½ inches tall and weighed 188 pounds. 

The applicant’s specific WMP records are no longer in his records as they are destroyed when a member is discharged.

A medical entry dated 2 Dec 86 indicates the applicant was referred for a reducing diet with a height of 69½ inches and a weight of 203 pounds. The maximum allowable weight (MAW) indicated was 191½ pounds. 

A 3 Dec 86 diet specialist notation reflected the applicant’s weight at 206½ pounds and his height at 70 inches. On 17 Dec 86, he weighed 203 pounds. On 31 Dec 86, he was weighed in his unit’s orderly room. He had gained 2¾ pounds instead of losing the required five pounds. For this he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) dated 8 Jan 87. This constituted his first failure in the WMP. He was also advised that a future unsatisfactory period could result in administrative separation. On 17 Jun 87, he received another LOR for gaining 2¾ pounds. 

On 17 Jun 87, the applicant was advised that his promotion to airman first class, which would have been effective on 24 Jun 87, was being withheld from 24 Jun 87 until the reason necessitating the withhold action (entry in WMP) no longer existed and he was recommended for promotion.

On 9 Oct 87, he received an LOR for gaining 7½ pounds and was placed on the Control Roster.  

Another LOR was issued on 5 Nov 87 for failure to go to his appointed place of duty and failure to report to the hospital for proper disposition. This LOR reflects a different squadron commander than the previous LORs.  A Report of Individual Counseling dated 6 Nov 87 indicated the applicant had been advised he was being considered for discharge for failure to progress in the WMP.

A physical exam on 12 Jan 88 indicates a weight of 209 pounds, and that he was overweight by 15 pounds.  A 13 Jan 88 LOR states the applicant had gained 10 pounds when he was weighed on 6 Jan 88.

On 15 Jan 88, the Airman Performance Report (APR) for the period 24 Feb 87 through 15 Jan 88 was referred to the applicant because it contained comments regarding his unsatisfactory progress in the WMP. He was not recommended for promotion and the overall rating was 6.  His only other APR, for the period 24 Feb 86 through 23 Feb 87, had an overall rating of 8.

On 8 Feb 88, he was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend discharge for failure to progress in the WMP. The applicant waived his right to counsel and to submit statements. The case was found legally sufficient on 12 Feb 88 and, on 17 Feb 88, the discharge authority directed the applicant be separated with an honorable discharge.

He was honorably discharged on 18 Feb 88 in the grade of airman for exceeding Air Force weight standards, and with 1 year, 11 months and 25 days of active service.

According to the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) handbook, Federal Benefits for Veterans and Dependents, in order to be eligible for home loan guaranties, a veteran must have a good credit rating, an income sufficient to support mortgage payments, and agree to live in the property. Eligibility varies with service. Post-Vietnam veterans like the applicant who separated between 8 Sep 80 and 1 Aug 90 had to complete 24 months of continuous active duty or the full period---at least 181 days---for which the person was called or ordered to active duty, and be discharged under conditions other than dishonorable; or complete at least 181 days of active duty with a hardship, convenience of the government, reduction in force or service-connected disability discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSFM notes that, contrary to the applicant’s contention, there is no documentation in the discharge package that the applicant’s height or weight maximum ever changed.  Both commanders were consistent with the governing directive and their application of administrative actions.  They recommend denial.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPRS provide their rationale for recommend denial.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 3 Jan 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response. 

_________________________________________________________________

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 to warrant changing the narrative reason for the applicant’s discharge. The applicant claims his VA benefits have been denied but we cannot determine with any certainty what benefits, if any, have been denied or why. The VA has apparently established certain criteria in order for individuals to qualify for a home loan. Whether or not the applicant has satisfied that criteria is best left to the VA. As for his contentions regarding the WMP, the available evidence would indicate he did not make satisfactory progress in the program. He has not demonstrated to our satisfaction that his commanders did not properly or consistently apply the WMP standards in effect at the time, or that the reason for his discharge should be anything other than the one he was correctly given. We therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice. In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 17 April 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-03431 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Oct 02.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSFM, dated 11 Dec 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 Dec 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jan 03.