RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02102
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period
18 October 2007 through 28 October 2008 be voided and permanently
removed from her records.
2. Her line number for promotion to technical sergeant (E-6) be
reinstated.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was given a physical training (PT) test on 26 August 2008,
three weeks after receiving a profile. She was given
insufficient time to adjust to the new workout plan given to her
by her doctors. She was told to just lose weight and her
symptoms would go away; however, she was not able to work out as
instructed due to severe nausea and stomach pain caused by Gastro
Esophageal Reflux Disease (GERD). In addition, she has Graves
Disease which is a thyroid condition that causes unexpected
weight gain/loss, shortness of breath, and rapid heart rate.
During this timeframe, she failed two PT tests and lost her line
number for promotion to technical sergeant.
In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a personal
statement; copies of the contested EPR, notification letter, and
rebuttal; copies of medical history documents; copies of two AF
Forms 422, Notification of Air Force Members Qualification
Status; a copy of Deferral of Promotion Notification, copies of
letters of support; and a copy of the Evaluation Reports Appeal
Board (ERAB) appeal.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
staff sergeant (E-5). Due to the applicants medical issues, an
Air Force Form 422, dated 31 July 2008, was issued indicating she
was not medically cleared for the physical testing crunch
assessment through 29 August 2008; however, she was cleared for
cycle ergometry assessment, push-up assessment, and abdominal
circumference assessment. An Air Force Form 422, dated
20 October 2008, extended the applicants profile until
12 January 2009. The applicant failed minimum fitness standards
on two consecutive occurrences, 26 August 2008 with a score of
69.72, and on 28 October 2008 with a score of 55. She was
subsequently notified by her commander that her promotion, which
was to be effective 1 February 2009, was deferred until 1 May
2009 based on her failing to meet physical standards. The
applicant acknowledged receipt and submitted a rebuttal to the
notification on 10 November 2008. Following the referral of her
EPR, the applicant became ineligible for promotion in accordance
with Air Force Instruction 36-2502, Table 1.1, Rule 22.
The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicants
service records, are contained in the advisory opinions prepared
by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility at Exhibits B,
C, and D.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AF/A1PP recommends denial. A1PP states that upon review of the
applicants record, there is no evidence that her failed fitness
assessment test on 26 August 2008 was unusual or due to a medical
condition. The applicant has a long history of poor fitness test
performance as well as a long history of profiles for varying
causes. Between September 2004 and January 2009 she had 12 PT
tests documented. On several of these tests she did the bike
assessment and was able to achieve a passing score. However, she
was never able to achieve a passing score while running and had
poor performances on 9 of her 12 PT tests. The test on 26 August
2008 was performed using the bicycle test. She was continually
encouraged to lose weight and given low-impact exercise
recommendations that were in keeping with her medical conditions.
Her weight gain cannot be blamed on her conditions of GERD or
Graves Disease. Furthermore, symptoms of GERD are not commonly a
significant factor limiting exercise and cannot be used to excuse
her poor performance on PT tests over the time documented.
The complete AF/A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit B.
AFPC/DPSOE defers to the recommendation of DPSID regarding the
removal of the contested EPR. DPSOE states the applicant was
considered and tentatively selected for promotion to the grade of
technical sergeant during cycle 08E6. She received Promotion
Sequence Number (PSN) 3452.0 which would have incremented on
1 February 2009. However, the fact she received a referral EPR
rendered her ineligible for promotion.
The complete AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states there is no evidence
the contested EPR is unjust or inaccurate. The applicant did
file an appeal through the ERAB; however, her request was denied.
The applicant provided a physicians statement stating she was
not given enough time to prepare for her fitness test; however,
in accordance with Air Force Instruction 10-248, Fitness Program,
paragraph 1.27, it is the members responsibility to maintain a
healthy lifestyle. Although the physician states she should not
have tested on 26 August 2008 because of inadequate time to
prepare, it does not excuse her failure on 28 October 2008, given
the applicant had enough time to prepare for her next test. The
applicant was tested in accordance with Air Force Instruction 10-
248 and failed to meet the minimum standard. Her referral EPR
was properly documented based on the fitness scores. An
evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chains
best judgment at the time it is rendered. Once a report is
accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants
removal of the report from the applicants record. The evidence
does not substantiate the applicants request to void her
contested report.
The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant
on 4 February 2011 for review and response within 30 days. As of
this date, this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES 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 error or injustice. After a
thorough review of the available records, the majority of the
Board found no evidence that the applicants referral EPR is
unjust or inaccurate. The applicants contentions are duly
noted; however, the majority of the Board believes she did not
provide sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate her claim
that she was not given sufficient time to work on her health
issues that prevented her from passing her fitness test. We note
she provides a doctors statement indicating she was not given
adequate time to prepare for her 26 August 2008 fitness test;
however, she does not provide evidence to support that she did
not have adequate time to prepare for the fitness test she failed
on 28 October 2008. In accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-
2502, table 1.1, Rule 22, receipt of a referral report renders a
member ineligible for promotion; therefore, a majority of the
Board recommends denying her request to reinstate her line number
for promotion to technical sergeant. In view of the above, the
majority of the Board finds no basis to favorably consider this
application.
_________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:
A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2010-02102 in Executive Session on 15 March 2011, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the
application. XXX voted to correct the record as requested
and provided a minority report (Exhibit F). The following
documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-02102 was
considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Apr 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, USAF/A1PP, dated 27 Jul 10.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 1 Oct 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 7 Jan 11.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Feb 11.
Exhibit F. Letter, Minority Report, dated 15 Mar 11.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04024
His fitness assessment test dated 3 March 2011 be removed. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force which are at Exhibits B through D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: USAF/A1PP recommends denial. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04745
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04745 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. On 24 Apr 10, she petitioned the AFBCMR (Docket Number BC-2010- 02102) to void her referral EPR for the period 18 Oct 07 through 28 Oct 08, contending she was not given sufficient time to adjust to the new workout plan given to her by her doctors. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04301
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicants request to have her 17 October 2011 FA removed from AFFMS. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 May 2013 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01398
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicants request to change or remove her EPR. While it appears the applicant performed [her duties] extremely well during the reporting period, the failed fitness...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03248
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicants military records are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C, and D. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant's request to change or void the contested EPR. DPSID states the applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01534
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends updating the push-up component of the applicants fitness assessment to reflect exempt in AFFMS; which would change her overall composite score to 88.33 (Satisfactory). The complete DPSIM evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSID recommends approval of the applicants request to remove her contested EPR. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02279
The complete A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOE states, should the Board remove the three fitness failures from the applicants record, DPSOE recommends revoking the demotion orders and restoring the applicants rank to staff sergeant. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states at this time he does not have any additional evidence in support of his...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-05042
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibit C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends the AFBCMR approve the applicants request to void the contested report. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04893
In addition, he submitted his rebuttal letters for his Letter of Counseling and Letter of Reprimand/Unfavorable Information File (UIF) which he received for the two FA failures prior to receipt of his referral EPR, and asks the Board members to consider them. ________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicants request due to insufficient medical evidence to support his claim of...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00365
Her referral 4 EPR was rendered as a result of the contested FA failures and should therefore also be removed from her records. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 20 May 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). The applicant contends that because she had a medical condition that unfairly precluded her from attaining passing fitness...