RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2010-02526

            COUNSEL:  NONE

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His AF Form 910,  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (AB  thru  TSgt)
(EPR), rendered for the period 16 May 08 through 15 May 09 be removed
from his records.

2.  His promotion to technical sergeant (TSgt) be restored.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received a referral EPR because he did not have a physical fitness
test on file at the time of the report closeout date.  Based  on  the
direction from the fitness  program  managers,  he  was  exempt  from
testing due to an ongoing foot injury.  His  promotion  to  TSgt  was
revoked due to him receiving a referral EPR.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of  documents
extracted from his military personnel records.

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 (SSgt).

Applicant’s EPR profile is listed below:

                 PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

                  *15 May 10            4
                   15 May 09            5
                   15 May 08            5
                   15 May 07            5
                   15 May 06            5
                   15 May 05            5

*Referral Report

The applicant did not  file  an  appeal  with  the  Evaluation  Report
Appeals Board  (ERAB).   However,  the  ERAB  was  not  convinced  the
contested report was inaccurate or unjust.

The remaining relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application  are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air
Force, which is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the request  to  void  the  contested
report; but correct the AF Form 77 completed by the Unit  Commander’s
Rater.  It appears the report in question is an  accurate  assessment
of the applicant’s status as of the close-out  date  of  the  report.
The applicant’s AF Fitness Management System indicates the  applicant
has either been exempt since 2005 or has failed. While  he  may  have
been on duty limiting restrictions his AF  Form  469,  Duty  Limiting
Condition Report, expired on 11 Jan 09.  The applicant  indicated  he
was unaware of the procedures to obtain  an  AF  Form  422,  Physical
Profile Serial Report,  in  order  to  be  exempt  from  his  fitness
assessment test.  The AF Form  469  he  received  instructed  him  to
schedule an appointment with the Health and Wellness Center.   If  he
had followed the required procedures and received an AF Form 422,  he
would have been scheduled to retake his fitness  assessment  42  days
after the profile expired.  This would have allowed  him  to  have  a
current fitness assessment as of the closeout  date  of  the  report.
DPSID can only  assume  since  he  did  not  provide  any  additional
profiles from a medical provider, he was cleared to take the  fitness
assessment after 42 days had passed.

The applicant  failed  to  maintain  his  currency  for  his  fitness
assessment and his report reflected that.  Although the rater  marked
the  applicant  as  “Exempt”,  the  Unit  Commander  was  within  his
authority to  nonconcur  with  the  rating.    The  Unit  Commander’s
nonconcurrence actually made the report accurate since the  applicant
failed to maintain his currency of the  fitness  assessment;  thereby
failing to meet AF Fitness standards.  The report has  been  properly
prepared and is in compliance with the governing instruction.

When the applicant sent his rebuttal to the Unit  Commander’s  Rater,
the Unit Commander’s Rater did not specify on the AF Form 77, whether
he concurred or nonconcurred with the Unit Commander’s assessment  of
the  evaluation.   DPSID  contacted  the  Director,   HAF   Executive
Secretariat regarding his intent.  The  Unit  Commander’s  Rater  did
concur with the Unit  Commander’s  assessment.   Since  there  is  no
concur or nonconcur block for him to mark on the AF  Form  77,  DPSID
recommends that the following statement be added “I concur  with  the
Unit Commander’s Assessment of the evaluation”.

The complete AFPC/DPSID 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
29 Oct 10 for review and comment within 30 days.  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.   Applicant’s  contentions
are duly noted; however, we are not persuaded by the evidence provided
in support of his appeal, that  the  contested  report  is  unfair  or
unjust.  The applicant failed to maintain his currency for his fitness
assessment and his rating  chain  in  accordance  with  the  governing
instruction reflected such in his performance  report.   There  is  no
evidence that reflects the performance  report  in  question  was  not
prepared  in  accordance  with  the  provisions   of   the   governing
instruction.   Although, DPSID recommends amending his Air Force  Form
77, the applicant has not requested this correction.  As such, we find
no basis to amend this form.  Therefore, in the  absence  of  evidence
the contested report is in error or unjust,  we  find  no  basis  upon
which to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
2010-02526 in Executive Session on 11 Jan 11, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      , Panel Chair
      , Member
      , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 May 10, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 4 Oct 10.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 10.





                                        Panel Chair