MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:    

	BOARD DATE:           28 February 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001059197

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

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor		Chairperson	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That he be given credit for 20 years of service.

APPLICANT STATES:  That after being in the Army Reserve (USAR) for 12 ½ years, combined with 31 months of active service, he was denied reenlistment to complete the 6 ½ years he needed to achieve retirement eligibility for non-regular service at age 60.  He believes that a recent court decision has established that the Army discriminates by denying reenlistment based solely on a soldier being overweight.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He was inducted on active duty on 19 September 1968 at 23 years of age, then enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 September 1968.  He was awarded the military occupational specialty of medical specialist and was promoted to pay grade E-5.  He was honorably released from active duty on 5 May 1971 and transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) the following day.  His significant awards and decorations include the Parachute Badge, Vietnam Service Medal, Vietnam Campaign Medal with 1960 Device, Army Commendation Medal with oak leaf cluster, Air Medal, Bronze Star Medal with oak leaf cluster, and the Vietnamese Parachute Badge.  He served in Vietnam from 16 September 1969 to 4 May 1971.

He remained in the USAR Control Group until his discharge at the expiration of his term of service (ETS) on 19 September 1974.  He then had a break in service until his enlistment in the USAR for assignment to a troop program unit on 10 July 1976.

The applicant remained assigned to a USAR unit and was promoted to pay grade E-6.  On 12 April 1986 the applicant was placed on the Army Weight Control Program (AWCP) based on a weigh-in where he was found to be 74 inches tall and 257 pounds.  He was then “callipered” and determined to have 33.7 percent body fat.

On 23 July 1987 the applicant was honorably discharged at his ETS.  He was 42 years of age at the time of his discharge.

Army Regulation 140-111, Table 2-1, Rule F, Body Fat Standards, states that a soldier who does not meet the body fat standards is disqualified from reenlisting and no waiver is authorized.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  There is no record of why the applicant did not reenlist.  However, if he did not meet the body fat standards, he would have been prohibited from reenlisting.

2.  Subsequent to the applicant’s discharge in July 1987, he had sufficient time to lose weight and enlist as prior service to complete his 20 years of service and, therefore, to qualify for retired pay at age 60.  That he chose not to do so was a personal decision.

3.  The applicant has stated that there is a court decision which has determined that the Army’s weight control policy is discriminatory, but has not provided the Board with evidence of any such decision.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____jtm__  ___rvo___  ____cla__  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001059197	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020228	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	135.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.