Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01398
Original file (BC-2011-01398.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01398
		 
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: YES


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) (AB thru TSgt), rendered 
for the period 14 Dec 2009 through 13 Dec 2010, be changed from 
a referral 4 to a non-referral 5, or be removed from her 
records.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her EPR is not accurate because her fitness level was not 
accurately assessed during her 10 Nov 2010 fitness assessment.  
A pre-existing medical condition caused her to fail her PT test.  
She has a history of abnormal heart rate and has sleep apnea, 
which she believes prevented her from passing the walk test.     
 
In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of the 
contested report, her rebuttal thereto, excerpts from her 
medical records related to her sleep apnea, and a supporting 
statement from her physician assistant.

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

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant currently serves in the Regular Air Force in the 
grade of technical sergeant (E-6).

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 applicant’s request to 
change or remove her EPR.  The applicant failed a fitness 
assessment on 10 Nov 10 and as a result received a referral EPR.  
Although the applicant may have had some medical issues, there 
are avenues within the medical community to support these cases 
and afford Airmen the opportunity to recover from such medical 
issues; however, the medical community did not deem this a 
contributing factor for the applicant not to meet Air Force 
fitness requirements, hence the absence of an AF Form 422, Duty 
Limitations/Physical Profile, in the applicant’s records.  While 
it appears the applicant performed [her duties] extremely well 
during the reporting period, the failed fitness assessment 
caused the contested report to be a referral, and although the 
Air Force does not mandate a specific overall rating in these 
cases, it appears the rating chain deemed that a “4” rating was 
appropriate.  Therefore, the evaluation was complete and within 
the regulatory Air Force requirements.  To change or void this 
evaluation would be an injustice to other Airmen who have 
received the proper medical profiles regarding the fitness 
program or the other Airmen who have met the regulatory 
requirements.  

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ USAF/A1PP recommends denial, indicating that their medical 
Subject Matter Expert reviewed the medical documentation on this 
case, and determined it was unlikely that her mild sleep apnea 
diagnosis contributed to her fitness failure.  

The complete AFPC/A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant 
on 1 Jul 11 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this 
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).

________________________________________________________________
_

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.  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 (OPR) 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 the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2011-01398 in Executive Session on 10 Jan 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Apr 2011, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 20 Jun 2011
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ USAF/A1PP, dated 28 Apr 2011 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Jul 2011  	 




								
								Panel Chair


2


3


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04024

    Original file (BC-2011-04024.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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-2011-03754

    Original file (BC-2011-03754.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03754 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The complete HQ USAF/A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends voiding the three contested EPRs,contingent upon the Board approving the applicant’s request to have his FA test results removed from his records. e. His effective date...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02102

    Original file (BC-2010-02102.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03342

    Original file (BC-2010-03342.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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). Additional relevant facts pertaining to this...

  • 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02279

    Original file (BC-2011-02279.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The complete A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOE states, should the Board remove the three fitness failures from the applicant’s record, DPSOE recommends revoking the demotion orders and restoring the applicant’s 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-2011-04863

    Original file (BC-2011-04863.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His enlisted performance reports with close-out dates of 10 February 2011, 27 June 2010 and 27 June 2009, be removed from his records. The applicant did not pass the fitness assessment due to his failure to meet the minimum required score in the cardio and sit-up components of the assessment. That evaluation does not override the Air Force flight doctor’s medical opinion that the medical conditions did not preclude the applicant from achieving a passing fitness score.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00554

    Original file (BC-2012-00554.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    AFPC/DPSIM recommended the fitness assessment dated 22 February 2011 be removed. Should the Board deem the fitness assessments date 1 June 2011 and 31 August 2011 invalid and direct the EPR be changed from a referral to a non-referral, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 12E6, once tested. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 04871

    Original file (BC 2012 04871.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He disagrees with the findings of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility. The letter from his Flight Surgeon and 844th Communications Squadron Executive Director states that he was diagnosed with a medical condition that precluded him from achieving a passing fitness score and that he should be exempt from the cardio component...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04301

    Original file (BC-2012-04301.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s 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...