RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02075 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

He be reinstated on active duty in the grade of staff sergeant 
(SSgt/E-5). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His fitness assessment (FA) failures were based on two different 
testing standards (3 failures were under the old standard and 
one was under the new standard). 

 

He should have been offered probation and rehabilitation (P&R) 
prior to being separated. 

 

The administrative discharge board (ADB) recommended P&R; 
however, it was not granted. He was meeting all duty standards 
at the time of discharge and had no conduct issues during his 
enlistment. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of the 
ADB record. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 30 Jul 02. 

 

The applicant's commander notified him on 10 Mar 11 that he was 
recommending him for discharge for Unsatisfactory Performance. 
The specific reasons for this action were on or about 20 Oct 09, 
the applicant received a "Poor" composite fitness level score of 
50.05; on or about 19 Jan 10, he received a "Poor" composite 
fitness level score of 56.25; on or about 19 Apr 10, the 
applicant received a "Poor" composite fitness level score of 
63.25, and on or about 30 Dec 10, the applicant received a 
"Poor" composite fitness level score of 59.70. Before discharge 


was recommended in this case, the applicant was given ample 
opportunity to conform to accepted standards. Despite the 
unit's efforts, the applicant's compliance with Air Force 
fitness standards remained unacceptable. The applicant 
acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and was 
afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel and submit 
statements in his own behalf. 

 

On 12 Apr 11, a properly constituted ADB convened to hear the 
applicant's case. Although he conceded there was a basis for 
discharge, he requested to be retained. He admitted his fault 
and did not blame anybody other than himself for his physical 
training (PT) failures. He explained that he only got serious 
about the test at critical points in his career - i.e., re-
enlistment, deployment, etc., but after passing those 
assessments he did not take the fitness standards very seriously 
and was not sure of, or concerned about, the consequences. 
Finally, the applicant stated that he was not proud of his "back 
sliding" history, but he was proud of the milestone he had been 
able to achieve in his fitness quest - that he had passed his 
last fitness test, was currently in compliance and was 
volunteering his time to help others struggling to meet 
standards. 

 

The ADB found the applicant received scores of "poor" fitness 
for the assessments conducted on 30 Dec 10, 19 Apr 10, 
19 Jan 10, and 20 Oct 09. They recommended that the Air Force 
remove the applicant from active duty, and his service be 
characterized as honorable. They also recommended he be offered 
P&R with a conditional suspension of the discharge. However, on 
29 Apr 11, the separating authority, approved the ADB’s 
recommendation for discharge, and directed the discharge of the 
applicant with an honorable service characterization without 
P&R. 

 

The applicant was honorably discharged, on 20 May 11, with a 
reason for separation of physical standards, in the grade of 
senior airman (E-4/SrA). He was credited with 8 years, 
9 months, 21 days of active duty service. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial, stating, in part, the applicant 
received counseling on several occasions and was afforded ample 
opportunity to overcome his deficiencies. Based on the 
documentation on file in the master personnel records, the 
discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive 
requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the 
discretion of discharge authority. The applicant did not submit 
any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred 
in the discharge processing. 

 


The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

HQ USAF/A1PP recommends denial, stating, in part, that the Board 
should uphold the previous discharge action. 

 

They note the applicant was separated from active duty as a 
result of four fitness assessment failures within a 24-month 
period. In accordance with (IAW) Air Force Guidance 
Memorandum 2, effective 1 Jul 10, para 15; unit commanders 
possess the authority to make a discharge or retention 
recommendation to the installation commander once an airman 
receives four unsatisfactory FA scores in a 24-month period, 
when a medical provider has ruled out any medical condition 
precluding the airman from passing their fitness assessment. 

 

The complete HQ USAF/A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

AFPC/JA recommends denial, stating, in part, that the applicant 
has failed to establish any error or injustice warranting 
relief. 

 

They note the applicant believes the record to be in error or 
unjust because his four combined FA failures were based on two 
different standards. Although, the applicant correctly pointed 
out that his fitness assessment failures were evaluated under 
two different standards, AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, para 
9.1.5.2.1, provides that "a failing score, to include one under 
a prior version of this instruction, remains a valid basis for 
discharge so long as it is within 24 months of the member's most 
recent FA failures." The applicant's last FA failure occurred 
on 30 Dec 10, and it was the only assessment performed under the 
new standard, implemented in Jul 11, by a change to AFI 36-2905. 
The remainder of his failures occurred under the old standards, 
but all of them took place within the 24 months prescribed time 
(19 Apr 10, 19 Jan 10, and 20 Oct 09); therefore the 
requirements of the above mentioned AFI were met and the 
applicant's contentions are without merit. 

 

The remainder of the applicant’s assertions deals with P&R. The 
applicant alleged that the record is in error and unjust because 
the discharge board determined that he should be offered P&R and 
he was not, even though he also received a character letter from 
the discharge board's President supporting P&R, and he was 
meeting all duty standards, without any bad conduct issues 
during his enlistment. AFI 36- 3208, Administrative Separation 
of Airmen, provides that the Separation Authority is the Air 
Force official authorized to take final action with respect to a 
specified type of separation. The AFI specifically states the 
Special Court-Martial Convening (SPCM) authority "personally 
approves or disapproves discharges" for failures in the Fitness 
Program. 

 

In addition, the record review revealed that the government 
failed to obtain the "medical clearance" required by AFI 36-


2905, para 9.1.5.5.; however, the applicant did not raise this 
issue during the Board hearing, nor did he offer any evidence 
supporting a medical condition that might have prevented him 
from passing his fitness assessments. Therefore, the departure 
from the established AFI procedure is inconsequential given the 
full and fair proceedings otherwise reflected in the Board 
record. 

 

The complete AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 4 Nov 11 for review and comment within 30 days. As 
of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit F). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. The Air Force offices of primary responsibility 
(OPRs) have conducted a thorough examination of the evidence 
presented and we are in agreement with their opinions and 
recommendation. The discharge appears to comply with the 
governing AFI and we find no evidence to indicate that his 
separation from the Air Force was inappropriate. We find 
insufficient evidence of error in this case to warrant relief 
and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been 
submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe he 
has suffered from an injustice. Therefore, we find no basis 
upon which to favorably consider this application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2011-02075 in Executive Session on 28 February 2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 May 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 19 Sep 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AF/A1PP, undated. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 21 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Nov 11. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair