RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03248 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the 
period 20 Aug 2009 through 20 Oct 2011, be voided from his 
records. 

 

His line number to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt, E-5) be 
reinstated with a 1 Jan 2011 promotion date. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

On 29 June 2010 while completing his annual Fitness Assessment 
(FA), he collapsed and was unable to complete the FA. In 
accordance with AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, paragraph 2.4.1, 
he should have been retested within five duty days or be 
categorized “medically exempt.” 

 

His medical condition was under evaluation, precluding any 
exercising for four months. He was given an exercise 
prescription on 27 Sep 2010 and subsequently retested on 28 Sep 
2010 at which time he failed the FA. 

 

His referral EPR is unjust because not only was his medical 
condition not taken into consideration during this grading (sic) 
period, but his unit and the medical treatment facility (MTF) 
personnel failed to follow proper guidelines and Air Force 
Instructions. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of AF 
Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition, AF 422, Notification of Air 
Force Member's Qualification Status, Sequence of Events, medical 
records, a recommendation letter, certified dietitian letter, 
Fitness Assessment history, EPR, rebuttal memorandum, and 
weighted airman promotion system (WAPS) score notice. 

 

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 senior airman (E-4). 


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 (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36·2401, Correcting 
Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. 

 

According to the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS) 
record, he failed his FA on 28 Sep 2010. He was exempt in three 
of the four evaluation categories; the only category not being 
exempt was the abdominal measurement. What the applicant is not 
taking into consideration with this appeal is the fact that 
there were no untested categories that would have made being re-
tested within five days as an issue. He tested only on the 
abdominal component, and failed to achieve a passing score, 
based on this single measured component. Accordingly, DPSID 
finds that this allegation is without merit. 

 

Concerning the applicant's second allegation that his unit and 
the MTF personnel failed to follow proper guidelines and Air 
Force instructions, DPSID finds no evidence of this in the case 
as presented by the applicant. The burden of proof is on the 
applicant to substantiate this allegation and the only proof he 
provides are his own views and opinions. Based on the lack of 
any evidence to support the applicant's claim that MTF personnel 
failed to follow proper guidelines and instructions, they find 
no merit in this aspect of the applicant's claim. 

 

The applicant was only permitted to be tested on abdominal 
circumference (AC), and it appears from the documentation he 
submitted, he believes he was at a testing disadvantage due to 
his AC measuring at 38.5 inches. Even though it was not an 
automatic failure, it still cumulatively resulted in a ruling 
score on his fitness evaluation, when considered as the only 
fitness component. A review of the applicant's AFFMS fitness 
history illustrates that between 2008 and 2010, the applicant 
experienced an average 5.5 inch gain in waist circumference. He 
would imply that this increase of waist size over time was out 
of his control due to medical conditions (thyroid condition) he 
was experiencing. The fact is the applicant, although 
restricted in his ability to perform exercise during the 
contested rating period, was able to control his dietary intake, 
and thus could have taken measures to ensure that his waist 
measurement was in line with a passing fitness evaluation. The 
applicant was also deemed by medical authorities not to be 


exempt from the abdominal circumference measurement, and thus 
testable in this single component. 

 

AFI 36-2905 was effective 1 Jul 2010 and states: “It is every 
Airman's responsibility to maintain the standards set forth in 
this AFI 365 days a year." Being physically fit allows you to 
properly support the Air Force mission. The goal of the Fitness 
Program is to motivate all members to participate in a year-
round physical conditioning program that emphasizes total 
fitness, to include proper aerobic conditioning, 
strength/flexibility training, and healthy eating.” In the 
applicant's case, the phrase healthy eating is a key phrase. 

 

Due to the applicant’s failed FA, it appears the rating chain 
rated the applicant on the EPR appropriately as an "Above 
Average" airman. Although it appears the applicant performed 
extremely well during the reporting period, the failed FA as of 
the closeout date, caused the EPR 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. 

 

The evaluation was completed within Air Force requirements. 
Although the applicant may feel that this was unjust, there were 
avenues to ensure that any medical issues were taken into 
consideration - not by the rating chain, but with the proper 
authority, the medical community. Therefore to change or void 
this evaluation would be an injustice to other Airman who have 
consulted with the medical community and received the proper 
medical profiles regarding the fitness program or the other 
Airmen which have met Air Force requirements. 

 

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSOE defers to DPSID’s recommendation regarding the 
validity and removal of the contested EPR. DPSOE states the 
applicant was considered and tentatively selected for promotion 
to SSgt during cycle 10E5. He received promotion sequence 
number (PSN) 5224.0, which would have incremented on 1 Jan 2011; 
however, the fact that he received a referral report for the 
period 23 Aug 2009 through 20 Oct 2010, rendered him ineligible 
for promotion in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airman 
Promotion/Demotion Programs, and his PSN was subsequently 
removed. AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, 
states that a report is referred when "Does not Meet" blocks are 
marked in the performance assessment section of the AF Form 
910/911. 

 

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial to have the applicant’s FA, 
dated 28 Sept 2010 removed from AFFMS. DPSIM states, the 
applicant’s test on 28 Sep 2010 is valid and it should be noted 


that he tested AC only and did not meet the required standard to 
obtain a passing score. 

 

DPSIM refers to the applicant’s 29 Jun 2010 FA and states that 
AFI 36-2905, on which the applicant bases his contention that he 
“should have been retested within five duty days” after not 
completing the FA, did not become effective until 1 Jul 2010 and 
does not apply to the applicant’s 29 Jun 2010 FA. 

 

The complete DPSIM evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit 
E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 29 Feb 12, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded 
to the applicant 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; 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. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 1 May 2012, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

, Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2011-03248: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Jan 2012, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSID, dated 3 Jan 2012. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOE, dated 18 Jan 2012. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIM, dated 8 Feb 2011, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Feb 2012. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair