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 Member’s 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 applicant’s 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 applicant’s 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 applicant’s 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 applicant’s 
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 
applicant’s 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 physician’s 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 member’s 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 chain’s 
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 applicant’s record. The evidence 
does not substantiate the applicant’s 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 applicant’s referral EPR is 
unjust or inaccurate. The applicant’s 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 doctor’s 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