PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            1 February 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000041672

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Lutz		Member	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that her records be corrected to show that she completed the Emitter Locator/Identifier Course in 1994 and that the reason for her separation be changed.  The applicant states that she successfully completed the Emitter Locator/Identifier Course in August 1994 but it was omitted from her separation document.  She also states that she was pregnant at the time of her discharge and as such was not properly discharged.  She notes that if the “situation had been handled properly” she would have completed her 4-year enlistment contract.  In support of her request she submits a copy of a December 1994 statement confirming her pregnancy and a copy of her certificate indicating completion of the Emitter Locator/Identifier Course.

3.  Records available to the Board indicate the applicant entered active duty on 
9 November 1993.  Her 4-year enlistment contract included training as a 98D (Emitter Locator/Identifier).  The applicant successfully completed basic training and in January 1994 was assigned to Fort Huachuca, Arizona for advanced individual training.  Her records confirm that she successfully completed the 
8 week Emitter Locator/Identifier Course (231-98D10) on 11 August 1994 although she was never awarded 98D as a primary specialty.

4.  According to documents in her military personnel file she exceeded the Army’s weight tables on 28 February 1994 (153 pounds/30.64 percent body fat).  She continued to exceed weight standards in April (153 pounds/30.58 percent body fat), May (155 pounds/31.70 percent body fat) and June (152 pounds/31.37 body fat).  On 19 July 1994 the applicant’s weight stood at 151 pounds and her body fat content at 29.18 percent.  At that point she met her body fat standard of 30 percent although she still exceeded her 129 pound weight standard.  However, on 9 August 1994 she again exceeded the standards (151 pounds/31.90 percent body fat).  On 18 August 1994 a physician determined that there was “no underlying medical condition which caused the weight problem” and as such her unit commander initiated action to administratively separate the applicant from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 18 for failing to meet Army weight standards.

5.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation on 
1 September 1994 and submitted a statement in her own behalf.  In her statement she noted that the weight standards were not fair and served no specific purpose.  She indicated that she was able to pass the physical fitness test and could do her job.  The applicant also stated that “females should not be taped when they are on their menstrual cycle because females swell up….”  She also acknowledged that her separation would result in the loss of her education benefits.

6.  On 15 September 1994 the applicant was honorably discharged from active duty.  Item 14 (military education) on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) reflects “None.”  At the time of her separation she had 10 months and 7 days of active Federal service.

7.  The 29 December 1994 statement submitted by the applicant in support of her request notes that she had “an estimated due date of March 4, 1995.”

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides that soldiers who fail to meet the body composition/weight control standards set forth in Army Regulation 600-9 may be separated when such condition is the sole basis for separation.

9.  Army Regulation 600-9, which establishes the policies and procedures for the Army’s weight control program and standards, states that when a determination is made that a soldier exceeds the Army’s weight control standards he or she will be entered into a weight control program and flagged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-31.  Following removal from a weight control program if it is determined that the individual exceeds the screening table weight and body fat standard with 12 months from the date of the previous removal the individual will be subjected to administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200.

10.  Army Regulation 635-5, which establishes the policies and procedures for the preparation and distribution of the DD Form 214, states that item 14 (military education) will reflect formal in-service training courses successfully completed during the period of service covered by the DD Form 214.  This information is to assist the soldier in job placement and counseling.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence confirms the applicant successfully completed the 8 week Emitter Locator/Identifier (231-98D10) course at Fort Huachuca, Arizona in August 1994 and item 14 of her DD Form 214 should be corrected accordingly.

2.  The applicant’s separation for failing to meet the Army’s weight standards was appropriate with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize her rights.  At the time she exceeded weight standards in August 1994 she would have been barely 2 months pregnant.  While it is possible that her pregnancy may have affected her body fat content she did not raise that issue when the physician determined on 18 August 1994 that there was no underlying medical condition which impacted on her weight condition.  Clearly by the time she was separated on 15 September 1994 she would have known, or at least suspected that she was pregnant and yet still failed to raise that as a possible issue which may have impacted on her retention in the Army.  As such the Board contends that the actions by the Army in this case were proper, and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.

3.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of her request to have the reason for her discharge corrected.

4.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing in item 14 of the applicant’s September 1994 DD Form to show “Emitter Locator/Identifier (231-98D10) Course, 8 weeks, August 1994.”

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__lls___  ___bjl__  __jea___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041672	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010201	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	Grant	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.