RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05369 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Fitness Assessment (FA) dated 14 Nov 12, be removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His Heart Rate (HR) monitor was synchronized with another walker’s monitor. He removed the monitor from his chest; however, the watch was reading another tester’s HR monitor. Since the walkers in front of him were experiencing the same issues, the Physical Training Leader (PTL) augmentees requested all the walkers behind them separate to avoid the same issue. As he was nearing his last lap, his HR monitor reflected 145 beats per minute. He and another officer crossed the finish line at the same time (12:13) and both were asked to show their respective times. However, his watch did not reflect his HR, so the PTL moved his arm around in an effort to bring the watch closer to his chest and at the same time inadvertently moved it closer to the other officer. At this point his HR monitor read 174 beats per minute, the same exact reading as the other officer, who was moved to another area to have her HR monitor read. He requested a manual pulse check because he knew the HR monitor reading was in error. He stepped approximately 30 feet away from the other officer and the monitor read 137 beats per minute. He removed his monitor and walked over to the Fitness Assessment Cell (FAC) to show him the reading and again it picked up the HR of the other officer. He refused to sign the form because of the incorrect HR reading; however, the FAC entered his scores in the AFFMS. The Polar HR system manual states that “if the heart rate reading becomes erratic, extremely high or shows nil (00), make sure that there is no other HR transmitters within 1 meter/3 feet and the transmitter fits snugly and is moistened, clean and undamaged.” In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his Fitness Screening Questionnaire and score sheet, AF Form 422, Notification of Air Force Member’s Qualification Status, letter from Fitness Director recommending his score be removed, and other various documentation in support of his appeal. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of captain. The following is a summary of the applicant’s previous FA scores: Date Cardio AC (in) Push- Sit- Composite Fitness Results Score Ups Ups Score Score Level 11/12 42.30 14.40 6.50 8.30 71.50 Unsat 2/12 53.70 14.40 8.50 9.50 86.10 Sat 6/11 52.40 13.50 10.00 8.50 84.40 Sat 11/10 44.90 15.80 10.00 10.00 80.70 Sat 4/10 34.00 21.00 10.00 10.00 75.00 Good 3/09 34.00 21.30 10.00 10.00 75.30 Good 5/08 34.00 21.30 10.00 10.00 75.30 Good 1/08 Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt 1/07 Exempt 21.00 10.00 10.00 82.00 Good 2/06 34.00 21.00 10.00 10.00 75.00 Good _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial; however, they recommend exempting the cardio component of the FA. DPSIM states that the applicant provided a memorandum from the Director, Fitness and Sports Complex at Kadena Air Base, Japan which states her staff was aware of the manufacturer’s guidance that HR monitors can cause erratic readings and have previously separated walkers after crossing the finish line to keep their distance to avoid syncing with other HR monitors worn by other walkers. DPSIM states that the FAC conducted the cardio component of the FA as directed by the AFI; however, they overlooked the technical guidance provided by the manufacturer to maintain appropriate distance between multiple monitors. DPSIM states that there is no evidence the other components of the FA were not administered in accordance with AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that the effects of the faulty HR monitor after the walk had a huge impact outside of the inaccurate HR registered. Prior to completing the other components of the FA, both he and the FAC were under the impression (incorrect) that he had already failed the cardio component based on the faulty equipment. After he completed the cardio component of the FA, he had a 20 minute argument with three of the FACs and his tester regarding the accuracy of the HR monitor and requested a manual pulse rate or a retest with a new monitor. During this discussion, two of the FACs stated that “he was questioning their integrity” and appeared upset. He informed the FACs that he was questioning the test and not them. During the push-up component of the FA, one of the FACs he argued with stood behind him to observe. This was inappropriate because a FAC is supposed to randomly and impartially observe members. The individual that was observing him and the FAC were both counting his push-ups, along with his assigned “grader.” Around the 25th push-up the observer instructed him to “go lower”. After completing four more correct push-ups, the FAC pointed to his assigned grader, removed him and instructed another one of the FACs he had argued with to finish the remainder of his push-ups. He had completed 29 push-ups before the 30 second mark was given. He completed 20 more push-ups; however, only 2 were counted for a total of 31 push-ups. While he does not question the integrity of the grader, he does not believe the testers were impartial considering they were involved in a 20 minute argument in which they stated he was questioning their integrity. Removing the cardio component of the FA does not take into account the second and third order effects of the argument, being told you already failed, and the testers feeling their integrity was being questioned. The applicant wants his entire FA removed as requested by him and the Director, Fitness and Sports Complex in his original request. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ 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 an error or injustice. In this respect we note that the FAC failed to brief the applicant on the proper procedures on the HR rate monitors resulting in an erroneous reading during the cardio component of the contested FA. The Director of the FAC has provided a letter dated 14 Nov 12, stating that her staff did not consider terminating the test because the applicant had crossed the finished line. However, it is noted that they have changed their procedures to provide more detailed instructions. Nonetheless, the FAC Director recommends the applicant’s FA score be removed from the AFFMS and we agree. While we note that DPSIM only recommends partial relief, given the unequivocal support from the FAC and noting the circumstances of this case, we find the applicant has presented sufficient evidence to support the removal of his FA dated 14 Nov 2012. Therefore, we recommend his records be corrected as indicated below. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Fitness Assessment (FA) dated 14 November 2012, be declared void and removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered BC-2012-05369 in Executive Session on 5 Sep 13, under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: Panel Chair Member Member All members voted to correct the records as indicated. The following documentary evidence was pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-05369 considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Nov 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 24 Jan 13. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Feb 13. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Mar 13. Panel Chair