RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-04001

	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During three years of his enlistment, weight standard checks were never performed properly and everything was taken care of on paper, with everyone passing.  However, prior to his promotion to the grade of senior airman (E-4), there was a change in command and he failed Air Force weight standards and his promotion was withheld.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 8 July 1981 for a period of four years.

On 29 June 1984, his weight was 224 pounds, which exceeded the maximum Air Force weight standard of 205.

On 10 August 1984, he was placed on the Weight Management Program (WMP).

In a letter, dated 18 September 1984, the commander notified him that his promotion to the grade of senior airman, that was to be effective on 1 October 1984, was being withheld because he was on the WMP.

The commander denied him award of the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM) for the period 8 July 1984 to 13 January 1985.

On 14 January 1985, the applicant received a referral Airman Performance Report (APR) for the period 5 May 1984 through 14 January 1985, because the report contained comments regarding his unsatisfactory progress on the WMP.

He was honorably discharged on 5 July 1985, for expiration of term of service and was issued an RE code of 4J (Entered into Phase I of the Air Force Weight Management Program, or the unit commander has declared the airman ineligible to reenlist for a period of Phase II or probation).  He completed 3 years, 11 months, and 28 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that after enrollment in the WMP due to his failure to maintain weight standards, the applicant consistently failed to maintain weight standards leading to a referral APR and promotion withhold status.  He states that his weight was incorrectly checked until it was time for him to be promoted.  However, his records do not indicate that his weight case was incorrectly processed.

The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 28 February 2003 for review and response within 30 days.  However, 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.  After thoroughly reviewing the available evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error or injustice.  In this respect, the discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing regulation in effect at the time of his separation.  The applicant has provided no evidence to indicate that his separation was inappropriate.  His assigned RE code of 4J accurately reflects that he was enrolled in the Weight Management Program (WMP) at the time of his separation.  Furthermore, RE code 4J is a code that can be waived for prior service enlistment consideration, provided applicant meets all other requirements for enlistment under an existing prior service program.  Whether or not he is successful will depend on the needs of the service and there is no guarantee that he will be allowed to return to any branch of the service.  Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to disturb the existing record.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number BC-2002-04001 in Executive Session on 8 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Dec 02, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 21 Feb 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Feb 03.