RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01648
		INDEX CODE:  

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His line number for promotion to staff sergeant for cycle 02E5 be reinstated.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The significant differences in the body fat measurements at Ramstein AB, Germany and Officer Training School (OTS) Maxwell AFB, AL led to his disenrollment from OTS.  Because of his disenrollment from OTS, his line number was removed and not reinstated.  He believes this was unreasonable.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement, a copy of the Enlisted Promotion Information – WAPS Score Notice, a special order, a copy AF Form 108, Weight Program Processing, a copy of the Record Print Escape Quit – Percentage of Body Fat Measurement, two memorandums showing Body Fat Measurements, a copy of DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate – Type Training, and a copy of AETC Form 125A, Record of Administrative Training Action.  Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of staff sergeant, having been promoted to that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 December 2003.

Applicant was selected for OTS in April 2002.  On 26 June 2002 he tested and was considered for promotion to staff sergeant during cycle 02E5.  He was selected and received a promotion sequence number (PSN) of 0 (1 August 2003 increment date).  While out-processing from Ramstein AB, Germany, he weighed-in over his maximum allowable weight (MAW) at 204 pounds and was sent to the Health and Wellness Center (HAWC) to be body fat (BF) measured.  On 4 November 2002, he measured at 16 percent body fat, four percent under his BF standard of 20 percent.

The applicant left Ramstein AB, Germany, on 9 November 2002 and arrived Maxwell AFB, AL, on 11 November 2002.  Upon arrival at OTS on 13 November 2002, the applicant was again weighed and measured.  He weighed 206.5 pounds and measured at 22 percent BF, two percent over his BF standard.  The 24 TRS/CC directed the applicant be weighed and measured again the next day; the applicant weighed 205.75 pounds and measured 21 percent BF.  On 14 November 2002, he was disenrolled from OTS for exceeding his Air Force BF standard and was returned to enlisted status and assigned to Shaw AFB.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPF recommends denial of applicant’s request.  DPF stated the applicant’s commander was within his authority in applying Air Force entrance requirements for OTS by disenrolling the applicant.  A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB states in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Chapter 3, paragraph 3.1, airmen in the grades senior airman and below entering OTS are promoted to staff sergeant effective one day before departure, but no earlier than the 11th day before report not later than date (this is for pay purposes only).  The projected promotions of staff sergeant selects or above are removed from the Personnel Data System (PDS) when the PSN is after program entry (as in the applicant’s case).  Letters are placed in their records indicating grade, cycle, and PSN.  Their promotion eligibility may be reinstated if they are eliminated from training through no fault of their own.

On 10 July 2003 applicant submitted a request to AFPC/DPPPWM for reinstatement of his line number.  His request was disapproved.  DPPPWB agrees with this decision.  It was the applicant’s responsibility to meet and maintain weight/body fat standards, and he failed to do so.  He is therefore not eligible for reinstatement of his line number.  In order to ensure the enlisted promotion system continues to be fair and equitable to nearly 100,000 airman and NCOs who compete each year under WAPS, they must insist that each reinstatement meets stringent criteria.  They must also be consistent in the application of the rules governing reinstatement.  Anything short of this is not fair to the rest of the enlisted force.  As a matter of information, the applicant was supplementally considered and selected for promotion to staff sergeant for cycle 03E5.  He should receive notification of his selection within the near future.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

This evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states he is not contesting the recommendation made by AFPC/DPF to deny relief because the 24 TRS/CC was within his authority in applying AF entrance requirements for OTS.  What he is contesting is the standardization of body fat measurements from Ramstein AB, Maxwell AFB, and Shaw AFB.

He did not feel it was necessary to provide documentation noting the measurements taken upon arrival at Shaw AFB because he noted he was within standards upon arrival at Shaw AFB, and was never placed on the Weight Management Program.

Upon arrival at Shaw AFB on 11 December 2002, he weighed under standards at 189.5 pounds.  The next weigh-in was due to receiving orders for a TDY to Ramstein AB.  On 12 March 2003 he weighed 200 pounds and was measured at 20 percent.  Prior to attending Airman Leadership School (ALS) on 4 June 2003, he weighed 196 pounds and measured 13 percent.

In order to lose seven percent from 12 March 2003 to 4 June 2003 he would have to lose 26 pounds instead of the four pounds the documentation represented.

If the body fat measurements would have been consistent throughout the two bases he would have never been placed in this position.  If he would have stayed enlisted, he would have received staff sergeant for the 02E5 cycle.

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of injustice warranting a reinstatement of his promotion to staff sergeant during cycle 02E5.  We note the applicant was selected for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant subsequent to his selection for entry into OTS in April 2002.  Even though the loss of this selection based on his entry into OTS prior to the time the promotion would have been incremented was proper and in accordance with the governing directive, we believe, based on the circumstances in this case, the earlier selection for promotion should be restored.  The available record indicates that almost immediately before his departure for OTS, the applicant did not meet his MAW but that he was well below (by four percentage points) his required BFM.  Less than 10 days later, he was again weighed and, while his body weight had not substantially changed, there was a drastic increase in his reported BFM (nearly six percentage points above his previously recorded BFM) that we find bizarre.  Because of the BFM recorded at OTS, he was disenrolled and returned to enlisted status at a new assignment where he states he was immediately found to be within the regulatory weight standards.  We are unable to discern if there was an error in any of the recorded measurements and, if so, where the error occurred on the basis of the available evidence.  Nevertheless, we have no reason to doubt the fact that the applicant is currently within the required standards in view of his selection for promotion during the next cycle.  Based on the above, we believe any doubt as to whether the applicant was the victim of an injustice should be resolved in his favor by granting the requested relief.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he was promoted to the grade of staff sergeant effective and with date of rank of 1 August 2003.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 28 October 2004, 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 4 May 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPF, dated 22 Jul 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 3 Aug 04.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Aug 04.
   Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Response, dated 30 Aug 04.

AFBCMR BC-2004-01648

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, be corrected to show that he was promoted to the grade of staff sergeant effective and with date of rank of 1 August 2003.