RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02570 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be reinstated to the rank of Master Sergeant (MSgt). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She believes that her demotion to Technical Sergeant (TSgt), after 19 years and 6 months due to Fitness Assessment (FA) failures, was unfair. She went through a divorce, lost both in-laws, and had many other family issues in the last two years, which led to depression and she suffered many medical issues, including two herniated discs in her back, which made it very hard to remain fit. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 6 Nov 13, the applicant, who was serving on active duty in the Regular Air Force, was notified of her commander's intent to recommend demotion to the rank of TSgt for failure to attain physical standards. Specifically, she failed to meet the minimum abdominal circumference during four FAs over a period of 12 months. After considering the applicant's appeal and the Staff Judge Advocate's (SJA) legal review, the demotion authority approved the demotion action from MSgt to TSgt effective 20 Nov 13. On 26 Feb 14, the applicant was offered nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). She was charged with, on divers’ occasions between on or about 19 Feb 14 and on or about 21 Feb 14, without authority, failed to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty: fitness improvement training at the Rambler Fitness Center. On 12 Mar 14, the commander decided the applicant had committed the offense alleged. The applicant was afforded the opportunity to consult with defense counsel, accepted the Article 15 and waived her right to demand trial by court-martial, after additional time was given to make her decision. The applicant was given additional time again to present her appeal to the commander; however, she elected not appeal. The applicant’s punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $200.00 pay and a suspended reduction to the grade of staff sergeant until 18 Jun 14. On 19 Mar 14, the Article 15 action was reviewed, by the Wing SJA’s office and determined to be legally sufficient. In accordance with Title 10, USC, Section 8964 and 8992, on 7 Mar 14, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) determined the applicant should be advanced to the grade of MSgt, on the USAF Retired List, effective 31 May 24, when she would attain 30 years of active service plus time on the Retired List. On 1 Jun 14, the applicant was relieved from active duty and retired from the Air Force with a reason for separation of voluntary retirement: sufficient service for retirement, in the grade of TSgt. She was credited with 20 years and 19 days of active duty service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM did not provide a recommendation; however, DPSIM notes the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence of an error or an injustice to warrant an exemption or invalidation of the FAs during her career. The applicant provides medical documentation as proof of her physical ability history and medications she was taking; however, she did not provide any further medical documents. The applicant did not provide any type of memorandum regarding the medical status from her medical provider listing her limitations after the medication received, nor did she provide an AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report or AF Form 422, Notification of Air Force Member's Qualification Status. The applicant's fitness records were not present in the Air Force Fitness Management System and were not provided by the applicant as evidence. The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s request for reinstatement to the grade of MSgt, indicating the commander acted within his authority to demote the applicant from MSgt to TSgt, in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, para 6.3.5 (failure to keep fit). DPSOE opines the demotion action taken against the applicant was procedurally correct and there is no evidence there were any irregularities or that the case was mishandled in any way. A legal review was conducted by SJA’s office and they found the file legally sufficient as the actions taken were permissible administrative actions taken at the discretion of the applicant's supervisors/commanders. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant notes that her case is based on failure to remain fit in a 24 month period. The requested AF Forms 422s/469s are not in her electronic record for some reason. However, she was only able to find 2 of the documents from 2005. She is not sure why the medical staff didn't provide copies of the forms; however, she understands that it was her responsibility to stay fit as a member of the AF. The applicant further explains the circumstances surrounding her failed FAs and reiterates her original contentions that they were due to medical issues, including anxiety and depression; alcoholism and her back conditions which limited her ability to remain fit. In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of AF Forms 422 from previous years and various other additional documents. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. 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. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include her rebuttal of the Air Force advisories, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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-2014-02570 in Executive Session on 14 Apr 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, undated DD MMM YY, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 10 Jul 14. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 16 Oct 14. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Nov 14. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Dec 14, w/atchs.