RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02082
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00

                       COUNSEL:  NONE

                                                HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  3 JAN 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

            a.    His reenlistment status be changed  from  ineligible
to eligible.

             b.     Fitness  statements  removed  from  his   enlisted
performance report (EPR) for the period ending 30 May 2004.

            c.    He receive six months of back pay  to  his  original
expiration term of service (ETS) of 31 May 2005.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was erroneously denied reenlistment and was forced  to  retire  six
months early because his  commander  violated  instructions  and  used
administrative action for his first failure on the fitness  test.   He
also  states  his  2004  EPR  had  statements  regarding  his  Fitness
Improvement Program (FIT) scores.

Applicant's complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  (RegAF)  on  25 July
1983.

The applicant received a low fitness score on 4  March  2004  and  was
enrolled in the Fitness Improvement Program (FIP) on 15 March 2004.

The applicant’s commander nonselected the applicant  for  reenlistment
on  Air  Force  (AF)  Form   418,   Selective   Reenlistment   Program
Consideration on 12 May 2004.  On 12 May 2004, the applicant indicated
on the AF Form 418 that he did not intend to appeal the decision.  The
AF Form 418 noted the applicant on 8 December 2003,  had  a  body  fat
measurement (BFM) of 28 percent which is 4 percent  over  the  maximum
allowed and he was 42 pounds over the maximum allowable  weight.   The
AF Form 418 further noted the applicant during his fitness  assessment
stopped running after two laps and walked off the  track  refusing  to
even walk the remainder of the 1.5 mile run.

Applicant’s performance reports profile is listed below.

                 PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

             11 Mar 96                  4
             11 Mar 97                  5
             31 Dec 97                  5
             31 Dec 98                  5
             23 Jul 99                  5
             23 Jul 00                  5
             23 Jul 01                  5
             30 May 02                  5
             30 May 03                  5
            *30 May 04                  4

*Contested Report

The applicant on 10 September 2004 requested a  voluntary  retirement.
He retired from active duty on 1 January 2005, in the grade of  master
sergeant.  He served 21 years, 5 months  and  6 days  of  active  duty
service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPFF states the Air Force Instruction  (AFI)  10-248,  Fitness
Program addresses administrative and personnel actions  to  take  when
servicemembers receive poor fitness scores.  The commanders review and
determine what personnel action (reenlistment eligibility, retraining,
formal  training,  PME  and   promotion)   to   initiate   for   those
servicemembers who are identified  as  poor  fit  for  less  than  six
months.  The applicant’s commander used  his  option  to  nonrecommend
reenlistment rather  than  an  administrative  action.   HQ  AFPC/DPFF
further states the wording on  EPRs  or  Officer  Performance  Reports
(OPRs)  should  not  focus   on   the   numerical   score,   but   the
reasons/behavior that resulted in the poor  fitness  assessment.   The
applicant’s EPR does not reflect a fitness score but does address  the
standard.  They recommend the requested relief be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

HQ  AFPC/DPPAE  states  commanders  may  use  their  discretion   when
selecting  the  appropriate  administrative  and   personnel   action.
Furthermore, commanders may deem it would be more appropriate to  deny
one or more personnel actions prior to six months unfit based on other
quality factors or the individual’s level of effort towards  a  higher
fitness level.  Based on the rationale provided, DPPAE recommends  the
applicant's request be denied (Exhibit D).

HQ AFPC/DPPP states the contested EPR does not make a reference to the
applicant’s  fitness  score.   Section  VII  of  the   report   states
“Attention to new US Air Force physical  fitness  standards  could  be
improved; promote.”  This statement does not violate the  AFI  40-502,
AIG message 041656ZOCT04 or AIG message 041800OCT04.   They  recommend
the Board deny the applicant’s request to void the contested EPR.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

HQ AFPC/DPPRRP states on 26 May 2004, HQ USAF/DP implemented Phase  II
of the Force Shaping Program which authorized a roll back for enlisted
members in all Air  Force  Specialty  Codes  (AFSC)  who  were  denied
reenlistment.  The policy specified that those servicemembers who were
denied reenlistment would be separated on 15 January 2005 unless their
commander took definitive action to  retain  the  servicemember.   The
applicant, because he was faced with a DOS of 15 January  2005,  could
either request voluntary retirement prior to  his  DOS  since  he  had
completed at least 20 years of service or he could be separated on his
DOS.  The applicant requested a voluntary retirement with an effective
date of 1 January 2005 in lieu of a separation on 15 January 2005.
They recommend the requested relief be denied (Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
16 September 2005, for review and  response.   As  of  this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinions and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either
an error or an injustice.  The applicant did  not  provide  sufficient
evidence  showing  the  EPR  in  question  was  not  accomplished   in
accordance with Air Force policy or regulation.   His  unit  commander
had the discretion as to what personnel or  administrative  action  to
implement  to   determine   the   applicant’s   reenlistment   status.
Furthermore, the applicant indicated on his AF Form 418  that  he  did
not intend to appeal his nonselection for reenlistment.  The applicant
chose to submit a request to retire rather than being separated  under
the Force Shaping Program.  Therefore, in the absence of  evidence  to
the contrary, we find no compelling basis to  recommend  granting  the
relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of material error  or  injustice;  that  the
application was denied without a personal  appearance;  and  that  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-
2005-02082 in  Executive  Session  on  15  November  2005,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
                 Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Jun 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Military Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPFF, dated undated.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 22 Jul 05.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 2 Sep 05.
      Exhibit F. Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 7 Sep 05.
      Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Sep 05.




                       RICHARD A. PETERSON
                       Panel Chair