Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC 2011 03584
Original file (BC 2011 03584.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2011-03584
			COUNSEL:  NONE
			HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Date of Rank (DOR) to the grade of senior master sergeant 
(SMSgt-E-8) be corrected to 1 Jan 2011.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In Dec 2010, he received promotion consideration to the grade of 
SMSgt, but was denied because his records reflected a failed 
Fitness Assessment (FA).

He was injured and sought medical treatment from the base clinic 
on or about 29 Sep 2010.  At the time, he was recovering from 
injuries sustained in an automobile accident, which occurred on 
1 Mar 2010.  He still felt pain in his left knee and the cool 
weather seemed to intensify the pain level.

He had concerns because the pain seemed to get worse after he 
worked out at the fitness center.  He specifically complained 
about his left knee, however, he also provided a comprehensive 
history of the vehicle accident he was involved in on 1 Mar 
2010.  The clinic failed to validate a medical finding regarding 
his left knee pain; nevertheless, he was given prescription 
medication.

Since he did not receive a physical profile, he was advised by 
his unit that he had to complete a FA; therefore, he continued 
to prepare for his FA.

On 5 Nov 2010, he experienced an injury while running on an 
indoor track at the base.  He heard a loud "cracking" sound and 
fell to the floor in severe pain. He went to the clinic on 6 Nov 
2010 and reported that he sustained an injury.  The clinic 
seemed unsure about treatment and the doctor stated she did not 
believe he was injured.  She observed both of his knees and 
stated that she did not see swelling.  He was angry at her 
response and asked for an X-Ray.   She reluctantly gave him the 
referral, but her attitude was very negative.

On 9 Nov 2010, he received a call from the radiology department 
advising him to discontinue running or exercises that may affect 
his left knee.  The original AF Form 469, Duty Limiting 
Condition Report, never made it through the system because it 
was erroneously completed for only three days.  The document 
expired before it reached the commander or the Fitness 
Assessment Cell (FAC).

Two significant errors occurred during the process of acquiring 
a fitness test.  First, he was not in status and was not on 
orders.  Secondly, the person responsible for taping did not 
properly administer the taping process.

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
medical records, AF Form 469, AF Form 422, several memorandums, 
MRI Results, and his Promotion Order.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserves in 
the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8). 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, 
extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained 
in the letter prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air 
Force at Exhibits B and C.

________________________________________________________________

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ USAF/A1PP recommends denial.  A1PP states that while the 
applicant did not specifically request his 16 Dec 2010 FA be 
removed, his rationale warrants their opinion.  The applicant 
was involved in an automobile accident on 1 Mar 2010 and 
complained of knee pain as a result of the injuries he 
sustained.  After several medical appointments he was issued an 
AF Form 422, effective 14 Dec 2010 through 8 Jun 2011 which only 
cleared him to take the abdominal circumference (AC) portion of 
the FA.  On 16 Dec 2010, he took the FA, but because his waist 
measured over the minimum to pass an AC only FA, he scored an 
“Unsatisfactory”. Additionally, he claims the FA monitor 
erroneously administered this portion of the test by taping him 
from the right to left hip on the back side and multiplying that 
measurement by two.

A1PP states, the 16 Dec 2010 FA score in the Air Force Fitness 
Management System (AFFMS) is a valid score.  The medical 
community recognized the applicant’s knee pain by appropriately 
exempting him from the components that would have negatively 
affected his score.  Additionally, if the member truly felt his 
AC measurement was erroneously administered, he could have 
requested his unit commander's approval to immediately re-take 
the FA with a different monitor.  Re-taking the test within just 
days of the failure, with substantially different results, would 
have substantiated the member's claim the AC measurement was 
erroneously administered.

The complete A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit B.

RMG/CC supports AIPP’s advisory opinion.  RMG/CC states, the 
applicant’s records indicate he was eligible for promotion with 
a 1 Jan 2011 effective date.  On 16 Dec 2010, he failed his FA.  
His active duty commander, acting within his discretion as the 
promotion authority, deferred the promotion until he passed his 
FA.

Review of the applicant’s fitness history in the AFFMS, 
indicates he passed his FA on 26 May 2011.  Subsequently, he was 
promoted to his current rank of senior master sergeant on 1 Jul 
2011, after his active duty commander approved his promotion.  
With regards to changing his effective date of promotion to 
1 Jan 2011, the documentation provided does not justify or 
warrant a change to his records.  Had the member passed his FA 
in Dec 2010, he would have been promoted effective 1 Jan 2011.

The complete RMG/CC evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 29 Feb 2012 for review and comment within 30 days.  
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit D).

________________________________________________________________

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 error or 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 offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or 
injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) 
involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.

________________________________________________________________

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 this application 
in Executive Session on 19 Apr 2012, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket number 
BC- BC-2011-03584 was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Jul 2011, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ USAF/A1PP, dated 20 Jan 2012.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, RMG/CC, dated 22 Feb 2012.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Feb 2012.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03584

    Original file (BC-2011-03584.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He still felt pain in his left knee and the cool weather seemed to intensify the pain level. RMG/CC states, the applicant’s records indicate he was eligible for promotion with a 1 Jan 2011 effective date. ________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03673

    Original file (BC-2011-03673.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s military service record, are contained in the evaluation provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit B. Since the applicant was not exempt from the AC component, his AC measurement of 38.5 inches (at the time of the FA in question) was greater than the 37.5 inches required when all components are exempt except AC. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01787

    Original file (BC 2013 01787.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The medical documents mentioned above validates the applicant had a medical condition that precluded him from achieving a passing score on the contested FA. DPSIM indicates he has not provided documentation from his medical provider stating his medical condition would prevent him from achieving a passing score on the contested FA. In this respect, the applicant failed to provide a letter from his medical provider stating how his medical condition prevented him from passing the AC component...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01591

    Original file (BC 2013 01591.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 29 Nov 2011, a medical evaluation letter was signed by the same provider who issued the previous AF Form 469s. The letter states, “There are medical conditions that preclude this member from achieving a passing score on the Air Force fitness assessment.” On 1 Dec 2011, an AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report, was initiated from his Medical Provider, which could exempt the applicant from the cardio and push-up components of the FA. On 27 Mar 2012, a medical evaluation letter was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01410

    Original file (BC 2013 01410.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    To support his appeal the applicant provides an AF FM 422, Notification of Air Force Member’s Qualification Status; multiple Standard FM 600s, Record of Medical Care, reflecting that he saw his Primary Care Manager (PCM) numerous times about neck and back pain starting from 11 Mar 10 to 12 Mar 2012; two memoranda from his radiologist indicating the applicant had a medical issue with his spine; and a “Physician Discharge Summary.” The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01118

    Original file (BC-2011-01118.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01118 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The fitness assessment (FA) score he received on 31 Jan 11 be removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was exempt from 3 of the 4...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01893

    Original file (BC-2011-01893.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, he has not received an Air Force Form 422, for the purpose of physical fitness testing, to date. The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s military service record, are contained in the evaluation provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AF/A1PP recommends denial. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02880

    Original file (BC 2013 02880.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    In a letter dated 7 Apr 14, the applicant’s 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 applicant’s 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-2011-02702

    Original file (BC-2011-02702.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He asks the Board to consider his medical conditions and complications and how they have negatively impacted his ability to meet the Air Force’s fitness requirements in relation to the new abdominal circumference, and how his long term affliction of obstructive sleep apnea has notably affected his fitness assessment scores in previous years. The applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03248

    Original file (BC-2011-03248.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s 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...