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-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