RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-01409 INDEX CODE:	110.00, 133.00

COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	NOT INDICATED

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His noncommissioned officer	(NCO)	status	and	rank	of	Sergeant (E-4) be reinstated.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He suffered from a medical condition (thyroid disorder) which affected his ability to maintain his proper weight for which he was demoted.

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered active duty on 28 Oct 75, was promoted to Senior Airman (E-4) on 1 Sep 77, and received his NCO status (Sergeant/E-4) a year later.   His NCO status was vacated on
12 Feb 82 for failure to satisfactorily progress on the weight control program. He was honorably discharged for financial irresponsibility on 25 Feb 83 in the grade of Senior Airman (E-4). He had served on active duty for a period of 7 years, 3 months, and 28 days.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPSI recommends denial. DPSI states the applicant’s NCO status was vacated while on the Air Force Physical Fitness Program. AFR 35-11, Air Force Physical Fitness Program, states in part, “administrative actions may be taken to influence attitudes and motivate obese members to conform to Air Force physical standards. An individual’s failure to progress or participate in fitness improvement training or the Weight Management Program must be fully documented.” Vacation of NCO status was one of the tools a commander could take as an administrative action after the fourth 60-day observation period. A waiver could have been processed from a medical practitioner and approved by the installation commander to allow an increase to the applicant’s maximum weight standard. There is no evidence

the applicant sought such a waiver to allow an increase due to a medical disorder.

The complete DPSI evaluation, with attachments is at Exhibit C.
HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant’s basis for discharge was not related to his ability to maintain proper weight standards and his subsequent demotion; rather, he was discharged for financial irresponsibility.

Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. He provided no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred during his discharge processing, nor is it their opinion the applicant is requesting a correction to the reason for his discharge from the Air Force.

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D.
HQ AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE states the applicant has failed to prove an error or injustice occurred. The applicant’s commander acted within her authority when she vacated his NCO status. DPSOE further states the application has not been filed within the three-year time limitation. In addition to being untimely, the applicant’s request may also be dismissed under the equitable doctrine of laches, which denies relief to one who has unreasonably and inexcusably delayed asserting a claim. In the applicant’s case, he waited almost 25 years after his discharge to petition the AFBCMR.

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 5 Sep 08, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has not been received.

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. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations
1.	
of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as  the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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-2008-01409 in Executive Session on 8 Oct 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair 
Member 
Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2008-01409 was considered:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 20 Feb 08.
Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPSI, dated 29 May 08.
Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 6 Aug 08. Exhibit E.	Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 21 Aug 08. Exhibit F.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Sep 08.