RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03936 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Fitness Assessments (FA), dated 5 May and 23 Jul 13, be removed from his records. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The heart rate monitor readings during the contested FAs are inaccurate. A nurse from his unit accompanied him on 23 Jul 13 and read the applicant’s heart rate at 145 beats per minute immediately following the Fitness Assessment Cell’s (FAC) reading of 156 beats per minute. As for the 5 May 13 FA, because his heart rate (171 beats per minute) was identical to that of another member as they crossed the finish line together, the reading must be erroneous. The applicant provided excerpts from the Polaris website entitled “abnormal heart rate readings during exercise” in support of these arguments. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of major (O-4). On 5 May 13, the applicant participated in the contested FA and failed to attain the minimum score for the cardio component (1-mile walk), which resulted in a composite score of 26.11, which constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. On 23 Jul 13, the applicant participated in the contested FA and failed to attain the minimum score for the cardio component (1-mile walk), which resulted in a composite score of 27.22, which constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. According to AFI 36-2905, AFGM 5, Airmen testing via the 1.0- mile (1609 meters) walk are required to walk as quickly as possible, but not run, keeping at least one foot in contact with the ground at all times. Any attempts to alter heart rate such as intentional slowing or stopping during the walk are violations of the test protocol and will cause the test to be terminated and result in test failure. For the 1.0 mile walk, FACs will insert the member’s gender, age, weight, finishing heart rate, and total walk time in the FAC walk test spreadsheet to obtain the total walk time for entry into AFFMS. On 31 Mar 14, the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB) disapproved the applicant’s request on the basis that the contested FAs were not shown to be in error and there was no evidence of faulty equipment. Additionally, neither the applicant, nor his unit colleague, was certified to complete measurements and they cannot be validated; there was no evidence submitted that proved the FAC was in error. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) which is included at Exhibit B. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial due to lack of supporting documentation. The applicant completed FAs on 5 May and 23 Jul 13 and failed the 1-mile walk portion, resulting in overall unsatisfactory fitness levels. The applicant provided a letter from his colleague corroborating the applicant’s contention that his heart rate was recorded at 145 beats per minute shortly after the FAC had recorded his pulse at 156 beats per minute. The applicant also provided some e-mail traffic from his unit fitness monitor attesting to his assertion that he had, on limited occasions, seen the heart rate monitors of two members in close proximity to each other report the same heart rate. According to AFI 36-2905, AFGM 5, paragraph 26, “if a member believes the administration of his/her FA or his/her FA score was in error or unjust, he/she may submit an application for correction of military records.” There was no documentation provided which indicates the 1-mile walk was administered improperly. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 25 Apr 14 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. The applicant contends that the heart rate monitors used by his unit during his 5 May 13 and 25 Jul 13 fitness assessments (FA) were somehow defective and caused him to unfairly attain overall unsatisfactory ratings. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, we are not convinced that corrective action is warranted. While the applicant renders a variety of arguments intended undermine the functioning of the heart rate monitors used during the contested FAs, the only real evidence he has provided in support of his assertions is a supporting statement from a colleague who says he made an independent measurement of the applicant’s heart rate after the end of the 5 May 13 FA. In this respect, we note the comments of the author of the supporting statement indicating that he measured the applicant’s heart rate at the conclusion of the contested FA as 145 beats per minute, when the heart rate monitor the applicant argues was faulty indicated his heart rate was 156 beats per minute. However, we do not find this statement or the applicant’s arguments sufficient to conclude that he is the victim of an error or injustice. While we do not doubt the veracity of the supporting statement, we do not believe it is sufficient for us to come to the inescapable conclusion that the equipment must have been faulty as the applicant argues. In our view, it is much more likely that the negligible difference between the pulse rates measured by the device and the applicant’s colleague is attributable to the fact that the former was measured while the applicant was in motion, while the latter was measured while the applicant was at rest. As for the applicant’s assertion that the device also malfunctioned during his 25 Jul 13 FA because he was in close proximity to another member participating in the assessment, we do not find the applicant’s assertions or the documentation provided sufficient to conclude that the equipment during this contested FA was somehow faulty. Therefore, in view of the above, we are not convinced that the contested FA results are inaccurate. Therefore, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-03936 in Executive Session on 24 Sep 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Ms., Panel Chair Ms., Member Mr., Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Jul 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 3 Jan 14. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Apr 14.