RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-02956 INDEX CODE:	110.02
COUNSEL:	NONE HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her narrative reason for discharge be changed to ‘‘condition that interfered with duty’’ to allow her to receive Montgomery G.I. Bill benefits.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She has been attending a local community college and is 25 units away from her degree.

She has received an upgrade of her discharge and needs help with paying her tuition.

She tried to lose the weight but was unable and this caused her to be unable to fulfill her contract.

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 7 Sep 01, the applicant’s commander notified her of pending discharge action. Specifically, he cited failure in the weight management program (WMP) as the basis for her discharge.

Records indicate that she had five (5) unsatisfactory weight or body fat measurements from 12 Oct 00 to 24 May 01, resulting in a verbal counseling, two Letters of Reprimand, establishment of an Unfavorable Information File (UIF), and demotion from airman first class to airman.

The staff judge advocate found the discharge legally sufficient and on 17 Sep 01, the discharge authority directed discharge. She was discharged on 19 Sep 01 with an honorable discharge and a narrative reason of weight control failure.
She is credited with two (2) years, three (3) months, and     24
days of active service. However, on 7 Jun 99, she signed a DD Form 2366, Montgomery GI Bill Act of 1984 (MGIB), acknowledging the requirement to serve 36 months on active duty or 24 months of

active	service	and	join	and	serve	honorably	in	the	Selected Reserve for a minimum of 48 months.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states that based on the documentation 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.

The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 5 Dec 08 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not received a 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. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Additionally, we note changing her narrative reason to the requested reason of “condition that interfered with duty” will not render her eligible. 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- 2008-02956 in Executive Session on 25 February 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair 
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 7 Aug 08.
Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 27 Oct 08. Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Dec 08.