RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01586
								INDEX CODE:  
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX			COUNSEL:  None

	XXXXXXXXXX					HEARING DESIRED:  No

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  22 November 2005

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records be corrected to show she was medically discharged rather than discharged because of “Weight Control Failure.”

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her illness was misdiagnosed in 1995.  She struggled with her weight from that time until she was discharged in 1998.  She could have died trying to run two to three miles at a time and doing aerobics, all in an effort to lose weight, not knowing she had a condition that was and is potentially fatal.  Since her discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) has determined and has clearly stated that her currently diagnosed pulmonary sarcoidosis was present in January 1995 while she was on active duty.  Thus, she should never have been placed in the Weight Management Program (WMP) but medically discharged instead.  She would like to be proud of her service, not ashamed.  She did not deserve to be separated because of her weight.

In support of her application, the applicant provided copies of her separation document, her DVA rating decision, a statement by her physician, and DVA medical records.  A complete copy of the application, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30 October 1989, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic for a period of six years.  Prior to the time of her enlistment, she underwent a physical examination in which her height was recorded as 5’2¾” and her weight was recorded as 139 pounds.  She reenlisted on 28 February 1995 for a period of four years.  She was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4), effective and with a date of rank of 14 April 1992.  During the combined rating period 30 October 1989 to 22 December 1997, the applicant received eight Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs), in which the promotion recommendations were 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, and 3 (downgraded from 5 by the indorser).

The applicant was enrolled in the WMP on 13 March 1995.  Her entry weight was recorded as 191 pounds and her maximum allowable weight was recorded as 144 pounds.  For failure to make satisfactory progress in the program, the applicant was issued a Letter of Admonishment on 23 May 1997 and a Letter of Reprimand with establishment of an Unfavorable Information File on 8 September 1997.  In an oral counseling on 23 October 1997 for failure to make satisfactory progress in the program, she was advised that a fourth failure to make satisfactory progress at her unit could result in the initiation of discharge proceedings.  The counselor stated the applicant requested she be processed for discharge at that time.  The applicant had an unsatisfactory weigh-in on 12 December 1997.

On 12 January 1998, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant he was recommending she be discharged from the Air Force for Failure in the Weight Management Program.  The applicant was advised of her rights in this matter and that an honorable discharge would be recommended.  On 15 January 1998, after being advised of her rights by military legal counsel, the applicant waived her rights to an administrative discharge board, to further legal counsel, and to submit statements in her own behalf.  The commander initiated a recommendation for the applicant’s discharge on 15 January 1998.  In a legal review of the discharge case file, dated 15 January 1998, the wing staff judge advocate found the file was legally sufficient and recommended the applicant be discharged without the offer of probation and rehabilitation.  On 15 January 1998, the discharge authority approved the recommended separation and directed the applicant be honorably discharged without the offer of probation and rehabilitation.

The applicant was honorably discharged on 22 January 1998 because of “Weight Control Failure” with a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4B.  She had served 8 years 2 months and 22 days on active duty.  She was entitled to receive $17,025.13 of separation pay.

In a rating decision in August 2002, the DVA initially denied service connection for the condition, Pulmonary Sarcoidosis with Congestive Heart Failure.  In a rating decision, dated 18 October 2002, the applicant was granted service connection for Pulmonary Sarcoidosis with Congestive Heart Failure, rated at 100% disabling, and varicose veins, left and right legs, both of which were rated as zero percent disabling.

The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s military personnel and medical records, and DVA records, are contained in the letter prepared by the BCMR Medical Consultant at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommended the application be denied.  After summarizing the relevant facts contained in the applicant’s service personnel and medical records and her DVA records, the BCMR Medical Consultant indicated that, although not definitively diagnosed while in service, service medical records clearly indicate the presence of sarcoidosis manifested by enlargement of the lymph nodes in the chest (hilar adenopathy).  The evidence in the service medical records, however, does not show her sarcoidosis involved her lungs to any clinically significant degree while on active duty.  Weight management program entries indicated she was participating in a program of regular moderate exercise and at no time reported her exercise was limited by shortness of breath.  Other than inability to maintain her weight within Air Force standards, her duty performance continued to be excellent until her discharge.

The BCMR Medical Consultant stated the mere presence of sarcoidosis does not automatically require a medical evaluation board or a medical discharge.  Medical standards for continued military service indicate sarcoidosis is considered potentially disqualifying for continued military service if it is progressive with severe or multiple organ involvement and not responsive to therapy.  At the time of her administrative discharge, she was not manifesting symptoms suggesting her sarcoidosis was progressive, severe or involving multiple organs or was otherwise interfering with duty and warranting further evaluation in the disability system.  Post service records indicate pulmonary symptoms prompted her to seek care in August 1999, over one year following discharge.

Following a discussion of the responsibilities set forth in the laws governing evaluation, treatment and compensation of members and former members by the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, the BCMR Medical Consultant indicated action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement that law (see Exhibit C).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 7 November 2003 for review and response (Exhibit D).  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 an error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case.  However, the applicant has provided no evidence which, in our opinion, successfully refutes the assessment of his case by the BCMR Medical Consultant.  Therefore, we agree with the recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his opinion as our findings in this case.  In view of the above, we find no basis to favorably consider the applicant’s request.

_________________________________________________________________

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:

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-01586 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Nov 02, with atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dtd 28 Apr 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 May 05.