RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02880 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Her Fitness Assessment (FA) dated 27 Jan 11 be void and removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). (Administratively Corrected) 2. Her Fitness Assessment (FA) dated 13 May 11 be void and removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). 3. Her referral EPR for the period of 1 Apr 10 through 16 Jun 11 be void and removed from her records. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her hysterectomy, chronic thyroid disease and age attributed to her waist circumference and failed FAs. She should have been given at least 6 months plus 42 days starting on or about 17 Dec 11 for acclimation and recovery when her convalescent leave ended. In support of her requests, she provides copies of her Physical Training Leader (PTL) certificate, AF Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt thru CMSgt); AF Form 988, Leave Request/Authorization; e-mail communique, AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report; and medical information. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is on active duty in the grade of Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt, E-9) with date of separation of 20 Jul 18. She received a referral EPR for the period ending 16 Jun 11 with an overall rating of “4” for not meeting fitness standards. In a letter dated 7 Apr 14, the applicant’s Primary Care Manager (PCM) stated that it was evident that the Synthroid regimen was being adjusted when the applicant failed her now one remaining FA failure on the AC measure. The PCM also stated “Her current thyroid replacement regimen is considerably higher at 0.165 mg. She is being monitored closely by her Endocrinologist who is working with her to keep within the AF standards. These are extenuating justifications to seek reversal of a single FA failure that highlights her on-going struggle to maintain AF AC measure standards. I see it as no mark of deficiency that she has passed all her FA tests since the single FA failure now left in her records, but in this current competitive environment, she is stating that it matters. Perhaps, it is unfair to have this failure hang over her future career options, so I have prepared this memo to the unit CC per her request.” In a letter dated 9 Apr 14, the applicant’s commander concurred with the PCM’s recommendation to invalidate her 13 May 13 [sic] FA test. He also stated the referral Enlisted Performance Report was also invalid. The applicant’s most recent FA results are as follows: Date Composite Score Rating 29 Mar 2013 90.8 Excellent 5 Dec 2012 Exempt Exempt 18 May 2012 85.2 Satisfactory 4 Nov 2011 88.9 Satisfactory (Exempt: push-ups) 13 May 2011 70.3 Unsatisfactory 26 Jan 2010 Exempt Exempt 18 Aug 2009 Exempt Exempt ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the 13 May 11 FA due to a lack of supporting evidence. The complete FAAB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request for removal of her referral EPR for the period through 16 Jun 11. Based on the recommendation of DPSIM and the 13 May 11 FA failure remaining, the contested report should not be removed. Furthermore, the applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. The applicant has not provided sufficient substantiating documentation or evidence to prove her assertions that the contested evaluation was rendered unfairly or unjustly. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. To effectively challenge an evaluation, it is necessary to hear from all members of the rating chain, not only for support but also for clarification and explanation. The applicant has failed to provide any information from the rating officials on the contested report. DPSID contends the report was accomplished In Accordance With (IAW) all applicable policies and procedures. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Her Primary Care Manager (PCM) discounted her concerns she was not medically improved to pass her FA, denied her Abdominal Circumference (AC) measurement was medically related, disapproved her request for a second opinion and recommended she eat smarter and exercise more. She requested her commander at the time consider her rebuttal to the EPR but he declined. He then created a hostile work environment, issued her a Record of Individual Counseling (RIC), denied her request for a 6 month Date Eligible for Return from Overseas (DEROS) extension for join spouse assignment and initiated a Commander Directed Investigation (CDI). She filed an Inspector General (IG) complaint and a Constituent Service form with the state of Mississippi. Despite these efforts, she did not get assistance or support. Upon arrival at Eglin AFB, FL she was able to get her medical records reviewed and provides letters of support from her PCM and unit commander. Her PCM states he believes her Synthroid regimen was being adjusted when she failed the FA on the AC measurement and her current thyroid replacement regimen is considerably higher. These extenuating issues are reasons to seek reversal of a single FA failure that highlights her on- going struggle to maintain AC standards and perhaps it is unfair to have this failure hang over her future career options. In a letter dated 9 Apr 14, her commander concurred with the recommendation of her PCM to invalidate the 13 May 13 [sic] FA test which makes the referral report invalid. In further support of her requests, the applicant provides a personal statement, letters of support from her PCM and unit commander, AF IMT 174, Record of Individual Counseling; Constituent Service Form, AF Form 102, Inspector General Personal and Fraud, Waste and Abuse Complaint Registration; and various other documents associated with her requests. Her complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has substantially complied with the requirement to exhaust 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 error or injustice. We note the Air Force Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) recommends denial due to a lack of supporting evidence. However, after carefully reviewing the additional documentation from her PCM and commander, we disagree. In this respect, we note the applicant provides a letter dated 7 Apr 14, from her PCM stating that it was evident that the Synthroid regimen was being adjusted when the applicant failed the contested FA and stated there were extenuating circumstances to warrant reversal of the FA failure. Subsequently, on 9 Apr 14, the applicant’s commander concurred with the PCM’s recommendation to invalidate the 13 May 13 [sic] FA test and also recommended the contested EPR be invalidated. We agree that the applicant’s 13 May 11 FA should be invalidated. In regard to the contested EPR, the evidence presented in this case is sufficient to prove her assertions that the evaluation was rendered unfairly or unjustly and should be declared void and removed from the records. Although the applicant did not file an appeal through the ERAB, we find it extremely likely the ERAB would remove the contested EPR, if the FA’s that resulted in the referral EPR are also removed. In the unlikely event the ERAB declined to remove the referral EPR, the applicant could again reapply to the AFBCMR. Therefore, in the interest of administrative economy and fairness to the applicant, we also recommend removal of the contested EPR. Accordingly, in addition to the administrative correction to remove the 27 Jan 11 FA, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that: a. The Fitness Assessment dated 13 May 11 be declared void and removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System. b. The Air Force Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt thru CMSgt), rendered for the period of 1 Apr 10 through 16 Jun 11 be declared void and removed from her records. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC- 2013-02880 in Executive Session on 26 Jun and 18 Jul 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The following documentation in Docket Number-BC-2013-02880 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Jun 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, 30 Dec 13, w/atchs. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 5 May 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 May 14. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Jun 14, w/atchs.