ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-04719-2

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

____________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His 18 May 11 Fitness Assessment (FA) be declared void and removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS).

2.  His referral AF Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 2 Jun 10 through 1 Jun 11 be declared void and removed from his records.

3.  He be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8).

4.  His EPR rendered in 2012 be reconsidered for senior rater endorsement.  


RESUME OF CASE:

On 8 Aug 13, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s original request.  The applicant contended that his Wing’s policy regarding abdominal circumference exemptions was unfair.  Due to their policy he was required to participate in the contested FAs for which he had a medical condition that precluded him from obtaining a passing score.  While the Board noted the applicant had the support of his physician, supervisor, and commander, the Wing Medical Group clearly had the authority to establish policies and procedures for exempting members from taking portions of their FA based upon medical conditions.  Therefore, the board was not convinced the Medical Group Senior Profile Officer’s denial of the applicant’s request for an AC component exemption, the ensuing FA failure, and subsequent personnel actions, represented errors or injustices.  As for the applicant’s request pertaining to senior rater endorsement, the Board did not find the evidence he provided sufficient to conclude that his command abused their discretionary authority in making said determination.  For a complete overview of the facts and circumstances in the original case, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F (with Exhibits A through E).

On 4 Jan 14, the applicant requested reconsideration of his application, contending crucial data was not reviewed and new facts, as well as AFI changes will better support the case of the medical related FA failure.  In this regard, the applicant provided his response to the initial Air Force evaluation with an e-mail and rebuttal memo dated 28 Jul 13; however, the applicant’s rebuttal to the advisory opinions rendered in his original case was not received until after the Board deliberated his original case on 8 Aug 13.  However, while the applicant’s response was not received within the 30 days provided, in order to preclude the possibility of an injustice, the applicant’s request for reconsideration was granted.  

The applicant’s rebuttal addresses both AFPC/DPSIM and DPSID evaluations.  In response to the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation, he reiterates the importance of the character/support letter from his Primary Care Provider (PCM), which was included in his initial application and affirms “several” chronic medical conditions caused him to fail the contested FA.  While he agrees that the test was carried out according to the current regulation, he is challenging the 15th MDG’s policy and the decision made by the Senior Profile Officer who overrode his PCM’s decision to exempt him from the AC component of the FA. 

In response to the AFPC/DPSID evaluation, the applicant responds to each one of the “facts and comments” provided in the advisory, which clarifies his contentions.  Ultimately, his case highlights clear injustices with the fitness program for a member with serious medical conditions.  Additionally, the facts he presented show there is room to further improve our Air Force policies in regards to fitness standards and evaluation reports. 

As for the AFI changes, the applicant provided a personal statement in the form of an e-mail, where he references changes to the Fitness Assessment Appeals Process in AFI 36-2905, which allows the Wing Commander to be a part of the review process.  The applicant believes if this option was available three years ago, he would have had an easier route to fix the error since he had the support of his supervisors, PCMs, and his commander. Also, the AFI now allows for a BMI test to be performed for AC measurement failures, which was not available when he was medically cleared to test. 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit G.__________________________________


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

In an earlier finding, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence to warrant any corrective action.  After thoroughly reviewing the additional documentation submitted in support of this appeal and the evidence of record, we do not believe the applicant has overcome the rationale expressed in our previous decision.  While we note the applicant’s contentions, he has not provided sufficient evidence for us to conclude that the FA should be invalidated and the follow-on personnel actions should be removed.  As for the applicant’s new argument regarding that the change in standards form a basis for relief in that the policy in effect today provides members in similar situations the right to appeal their FA failures to their Wing commander, an avenue of relief that was not available when he failed his FA, we are not convinced that this change in policy renders the applicant the victim of an error or injustice.  In this respect, we note that at the time of the applicant’s contested FA failure, the AFBCMR was the available avenue of relief to similarly situated members in his circumstance.  While the applicant argues that he may have fared better if he could avail himself of administrative remedies that are now, but weren’t then, available to others, the fact remains that he has not presented any evidence that he has been treated differently than other individuals in a similar circumstance, or that the AFBCMR failed to give due consideration to the applicant’s arguments and evidence in arriving at its original decision.  Therefore, in view of the above, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable consideration of the applicant’s request.


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-2014-04719 in Executive Session on 29 Jan 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
	


The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit F.  Record of Proceedings, dated, 8 Aug 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit G.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated, 28 Jul 13, w/atch.