RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04664 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

The Fitness Assessment (FA) scores he received on 30 Jul 10, 
7 Dec 10, 12 Apr 11, and 8 Jul 11 be removed from the Air Force 
Fitness Management System (AFFMS). 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His primary care manager (PCM) has identified his medical 
problems as chronic. His back problems date back to 2005 and 
have become progressively worse. He has been placed on several 
medical profiles and various medications for pain management. 
These actions did not properly address his medical problems nor 
allow for a fair test to be administered. He received a referral 
performance report as a result of the unsatisfactory FAs. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
AF Forms 469, Duty Limiting Condition (DLC) Report, AF Forms 422, Notification of Air Force Member’s Qualification Status, and 
memoranda from his commander and PCM. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in 
the rank of staff sergeant (E-5). 

 

On 25 Jun 10, the applicant was issued an AF Form 469, with a 
25 Jul 10 expiration date, reflecting he was restricted from 
performing sit ups and pushups, but was allowed to run at his own 
pace/distance. 

 

On 29 Jun 10, the applicant was issued another AF Form 469 
indicating that if he is required to complete a fitness test 
prior to his DLC release date, he should only be subjected to the 
waist measurement and the 3 mile brisk walk or cycle ergometry 


test, unless the applicant states he is able to perform the 1.5 
mile run. 

 

On 30 Jul 10, the applicant participated in a FA and received a 
composite score of 35.63, which placed him in an “unsatisfactory” 
fitness category. 

 

On 6 Oct 10, the applicant was issued another AF Form 469 which 
updated his DLC restrictions to reflect that he could run and do 
sit ups and pushups at his own pace. The AF Form 469 further 
indicates if the applicant’s restrictions were greater than 30 
days, he was required to be seen by the Health and Wellness 
Center (HAWC) for an exercise prescription. The recommendation 
release date was 4 Jun 11. 

 

On 7 Oct 10, the applicant was issued an AF Form 422 reflecting 
the applicant had a DLC created on 6 Oct 10 for the same 
injury/condition from his previous DLC. The new DLC had a 
release date of 4 Jan 11 for running, sit ups, and pushups at own 
pace. If the applicant was required to complete a fitness test 
before the DLC release date plus 42 days of reconditioning he was 
to test on waist measurement and the 1 mile walk. If applicant 
was able to perform the pushups/crunches and/or the 1.5 mile run 
(without aggravating his condition) he could do so. If the DLC 
was greater than 30 days the applicant was required to meet with 
the Fitness Program Manger (FPM) to discuss his exercise regimen. 

 

On 7 Dec 10, the applicant participated in a FA and received a 
composite score of 42.88, which placed him in an “unsatisfactory” 
fitness category. 

 

On 23 Mar 11, the applicant was issued another AF Form 469 
reflecting he applicant was exempt from running greater than 100 
yards, doing pushups and sit ups, or participating in unit 
physical fitness training for up to 30 days. Furthermore, if the 
fitness restrictions were for greater than 30 days, or if the 
applicant was required to test within the next 30 days, the Unit 
Fitness Program Manager (UFPM) or the applicant had to call the 
HAWC for an exercise prescription. The DLC release date was 
21 Jun 11. 

 

On 29 Mar 11, the applicant was issued an AF Form 422 reflecting 
similar restrictions. The AF Form 422 further indicated the 
applicant was to continue to attempt to meet training guidelines 
for aerobic fitness (3-5 days, 20 minute sessions, 60-90 percent 
maximum heart rate), strength training (2 weeks for 8-10 
exercises) and range of motion (flexibility) exercises to address 
all major muscle groups (3 day/week). 

 

On 12 Apr 11, the applicant participated in a FA and received a 
composite score of 0.00 on his FA, which placed him in an 
“unsatisfactory” fitness category. 

 


On 22 Apr 11, the applicant was issued an AF Form 422 reflecting 
the applicant’s DLC was updated with a new release date of 
21 Jun 11 with the following restrictions: no running greater 
than 100 yards, no pushups or sit ups. If the applicant was 
required to complete a fitness test before the DLC release date 
plus 42 days reconditioning he was to test on waist measurement 
and the one mile walk only. The AF Form 422 further noted if the 
applicant stated his injury/condition was aggravated by 
performing the 1 mile walk, then the 1 mile walk was to be waived 
and he was to be tested solely on waist measurement. The 
applicant was further encouraged to continue to attempt training 
as previously recommended. 

 

On 8 Jul 11, the applicant participated in a FA and received a 
composite score of 73.38 on his FA, which placed him in an 
“unsatisfactory” fitness category. 

 

A memorandum dated 8 Aug 11, from the applicant’s PCM reflects 
the applicant had a medical condition that precluded the 
applicant from achieving passing scores on his FAs for 12 Apr 11 
and 8 Jul 11. The PCM further stated he was unable to speak on 
the FAs for 30 Jul 10 and 7 Dec 10 because the applicant was not 
under his care; however, his records do reflect that at the time 
he was under a physician’s care for low back pain, and medical 
profiles were in place. The PCM further stated the applicant’s 
chronic low back pain does limit his physical fitness 
capabilities, but it was not the sole reason for his failures. 

 

On 20 Apr 11, the contested EPR was referred to the applicant 
because he failed to meet/maintain fitness standards. On 25 Apr 
11, the applicant submitted a rebuttal thereto and the EPR was 
rendered upon him the same day. 

 

On 22 Sep 11, the applicant was issued an AF Form 469 reflecting 
the applicant could run, walk, perform sit ups, and pushups at 
his own pace as tolerated with a release date of 21 Nov 11. The 
applicant was exempt from unit physical fitness training for up 
to 30 days. Furthermore, if the fitness restrictions were for 
greater than 30 days, or if the applicant was required to test 
within the next 30 days, the UFPM or the applicant was to call 
the HAWC for an exercise prescription. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial, noting that while the applicant’s 
PCM stated the applicant’s chronic back pain does limit his 
physical fitness opportunities, it is not the sole reason for his 
fitness failures. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSIM evaluation, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit B. 

 


AFPC/DPSIDE indicates there is no action required by their office 
since the contested performance report has not been made a matter 
of record; however, once the report is made a matter of records 
the applicant must first seek relief via the Evaluation Report 
Appeals Board (ERAB). 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSIDE evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

His chronic medical condition affected his Physical Training 
(PT). His original package speaks to the validity of the FAs and 
his subsequent failures. He is unaware of any test in the Air 
Force that can be validated if there are outside factors that 
altered the outcome. If any part of the test and subsequent 
score was affected by a medical condition then the just 
conclusion is to label the test invalid. His PCM stated his 
chronic lower back pain limits his physical fitness capabilities, 
but it's not the sole reason for his failures. However, this 
statement does not say what "are" the other reasons for his 
failures. This statement is vague and should not be acceptable 
as the basis to deny his request. His PCM clearly indicated 
there is a medical condition that precluded him from achieving a 
passing score on his fitness test. This is clear and 
indisputable evidence the fitness tests were indeed affected by 
his medical condition. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
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 an error or injustice. The 
applicant contends his chronic back pain precluded him from 
passing four fitness assessments (FA) and ultimately resulted in 
him receiving the contested referral enlisted performance report 
(EPR). After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the 
applicant’s complete submission, to include his response to the 
advisory opinion rendered in his case, we are not convinced that 
his chronic condition precluded him from obtaining a fair FA. 
While it is clear the applicant did suffer from chronic lower 
back pain and the record indicates he was appropriately placed on 
various profile restrictions during the matter under review, we 
do not find the applicant’s arguments and the documentation 


presented sufficient to conclude the contested FAs were somehow 
unfair and that he was not appropriately tested within the 
limitations prescribed in the various profile documents as his 
condition evolved. While the applicant has provided a supporting 
statement from his Primary Care Manager (PCM) indicating that his 
medical condition limited his physical fitness opportunities, we 
note the PCM also clearly indicated said condition was not the 
sole basis for the applicant’s failure to attain a passing FA 
score. Therefore, having no basis to conclude the FAs were 
erroneous or somehow unfair, we find no basis that would serve to 
undermine the validity of the contested referral EPR. 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-04664 in Executive Session on 18 Sep 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Nov 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Military Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIM, dated 24 Feb 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIDE, dated 3 May 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, Letter, dated 11 May 12. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Jun 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair