RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03342
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period
10 June 2009 through 9 June 2010 be declared void and removed
from his records, and replaced with an AF Form 77, (Letter of
Evaluation).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His EPR states he failed to meet the waist standard and cardio
portions.
In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his
AF Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt thru CMSgt), a
copy of his referral package, and a copy of AF Form 469, Duty
Limiting Condition Report.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in
the grade of master sergeant (E-7).
Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of
the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these
facts in this Record of Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states they contacted the
applicant and asked him to provide additional information;
however, he did not respond. He provided the AF Form 469 and a
memorandum from his medical provider stating that he is not
medically cleared for the 1.5 mile run, push-ups, crunches, and
unit PT. The applicant did not file an appeal through the
Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB); however, the ERAB
reviewed his application and was not convinced the contested
report was inaccurate or unjust. However, there are some errors
in the report since it states the applicant was exempt from the
cardio portion of the test; nevertheless, he still failed to meet
the waist standard. As such, the report should be
administratively corrected, rather than voided. DPSID recommends
changing Section III, Block 3 of the report from Failed to meet
waist std and cardio portions, push-up/sit-up exemptions to
Failed to meet minimum standards. Additionally, the comments
on the referral memorandum should be changed from failed to meet
abdominal circumference standard and cardio component to failed
to meet abdominal circumference and give the applicant another
chance to rebut the referred EPR.
The DPSID complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.
HQ USAF/A1PP recommends denial and agrees with DPSIDs
assessment the report should be administratively corrected,
rather than voided in its entirety in accordance with the
governing instructions.
The complete HQ USAF/A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 8 Apr 11 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this
date, this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting a
measure of relief. In this respect, after a thorough review of
the evidence of record and the applicant's submission, we agree
with the recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary
responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for
our determination the report should be administratively corrected
rather than removed in its entirety from the applicants record.
Therefore, we recommend the applicants record be corrected to
the extent indicated below.
______________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that:
a. The Senior Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt through
CMSgt), AF Form 911, rendered for the period 10 June 2009 through
9 June 2010, be amended in Section III, Fitness, to read Failed
to meet minimum standards, rather than Failed to meet waist std
and cardio portions, push-up/sit-up exemptions.
b. The 96 LRS/LGRMSP referral memorandum, dated 23 June
2010, be amended to reflect failed to meet abdominal
circumference, rather than failed to meet abdominal
circumference standard and cardio component.
______________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2010-03342 in Executive Session on 26 May 11, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Sep 09, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 24 Jan 11.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ USAF/A1PP, dated 28 Mar 11
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Apr 11.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04719
At the time of the FA, he suffered from multiple serious medical conditions which warranted exemption from the full FA; however, he was required to take the AC portion. On 22 Nov 10, the applicants Wing Medical Group issued a memorandum, Clarification of AC Exemption Recommendation for FA, establishing the Exercise Physiologist working with the Senior Profile Officer as the only authorities who could recommend to commanders medical exemptions from components of an FA for a member with Duty...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02880
In a letter dated 7 Apr 14, the applicants Primary Care Manager (PCM) stated that it was evident that the Synthroid regimen was being adjusted when the applicant failed her now one remaining FA failure on the AC measure. The complete FAAB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicants request for removal of her referral EPR for the period through 16 Jun 11. In this respect, we note the applicant provides a letter dated 7 Apr 14, from her PCM...
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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 00324
On or about 18 March 2011, the applicant requested a two-week extension of the close-out date of the contested report to include a successful fitness assessment. On 24 November 2013, the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board voided the Fitness Assessments, dated 26 August 2004, 21 July 2005, 21 February 2006, 4 April 2008 and 14 October 2009, and they have been removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System. Moreover, we also recognize that she would have been able to successfully...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00240
His fitness assessments dated 29 December 2010, 9 March 2011, and 16 August 2011 be removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). The complete 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 17 July 2102, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). After a thorough review of the evidence presented, we...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05000
DPSIM further recommends the fitness assessments dated 27 Sep 11, 30 Dec 11, and 28 Mar 12 be corrected to reflect the applicant was exempt from the waist measurement component of these FAs. The complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He was told he had to participate in the abdominal circumference for the 29 Mar 11 FA, not knowing there was an AF Form 422...
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-2012-04609
Her 16 November 2010, 14 February 2011, 5 January 2012, 3 April 2012, and 2 July 2012 Fitness Assessment (FA) scores be declared void and removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends approval of the applicants request to have her 16 November 2010, 14 February 2011, 5 January 2012, 3 April 2012, and 2 July 2012 Fitness Assessments removed from the Air Force Fitness...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04690
On 24 March 2011, the applicant was issued an AF Form 422, Notification of Air Force Members Qualification Status, which exempted him from the 1.5 mile run and sit-up components of the FA, until 10 May 2011. On 17 May 2011, the applicant was issued an AF Form 422, which exempted him from the 1.5 mile run and sit-up components of the FA, until 10 June 2011. We took notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04345
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicants request to remove the demotion action and restore his rank to Technical Sergeant. Therefore, in view of the fact that we have determined the evidence is sufficient to conclude there was a causal nexus between the medical condition for which the applicant received a disability discharged and his ability to attain passing scores on his FAs, we also believe it is reasonable to conclude...