RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-05166

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 15 Dec 11 Fitness Assessment (FA) score be declared void and removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS).  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His FA failure was due to ongoing medical issues with his tailbone, subsequent to a pilonidal cyst removal on 14 Jan 11.  Approximately two weeks prior to his contested FA, doctors at his temporary duty (TDY) location misdiagnosed his pain as a sprained tailbone or inflamed scar tissue and issued him two weeks duty restrictions.  Later, his regular Primary Care Manager (PCM) referred him to a surgeon and within one month of his FA failure he was scheduled for surgery.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 15 Jul 08.  

On 14 Jan 10, the applicant participated in a FA and attained a composite score of 71.70, which constituted a poor assessment.  

On 14 Mar 10, the applicant’s Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 15 Jul 08 thru 14 Mar 10, was referred to him for a rating of “Does Not Meet” standards in section III, Fitness, and comments related to his receipt of an LOR for failing to meet minimum fitness standards.

On 17 Oct 11, the applicant participated in a FA and attained a composite score of 72.40, which constituted an unsatisfactory assessment.  

On 29 Nov 11, an emergency services flight duty restrictions form, provided by the applicant, indicated he was restricted from performing sit-ups until 6 Dec 11 and instructed him to follow-up with his PCM for evaluation and determination of further care and/or restrictions.  

On 15 Dec 11, the applicant participated in the contested FA, attaining a composite score of 74.20, which constituted an unsatisfactory assessment.  

On 20 Dec 11, the applicant’s EPR, rendered for the period 21 Dec 10 thru 20 Dec 11, was referred to him for a rating of “Does Not Meet” standards in section III, Fitness, and comments related to his failure of two FAs.  

On 28 Dec 11, the applicant was issued a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for his 15 Dec 11 FA failure.  He acknowledged receipt of the LOR and elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

On 28 Dec 11, the applicant was issued an AF IMT 1058, Unfavorable Information File (UIF) Action, indicating the commander’s intent to establish a UIF and attach his 28 Dec 11 LOR.  The applicant acknowledged receipt and elected to provide a statement on his in behalf.  

On 7 Jan 12, the applicant elected to provide a statement on his own behalf in regards to the referral EPR.  Specifically, he attributed his FA failure to complications from his 14 Jan 11 cyst removal surgery.  

On 9 Jan 12, after considering the applicant’s statement, the commander decided to file the LOR in his UIF..  

On 13 Jan 12, according to documentation provided by the applicant, a general surgery provider indicated he was under the care of the General Surgery Clinic due to chronic recurrent problems with a pilonidal cyst during the period 10 Jan 12 thru 13 Jan 13.  He indicated the applicant’s physical examination was consistent with chronic inflammation and may account for physical training limitations in his recent past.  

On 1 Feb 12, the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent to recommend his administrative demotion to the grade of airman first class (E-3) for failure to keep fit.

On 7 Feb 12, the applicant’s area defense counsel (ADC) provided a letter on his behalf arguing that his fitness failures were attributable to an undiagnosed medical condition that was not appropriately profiled.  

On 13 Feb 12, the applicant provided a well-documented rebuttal package showing a history of medical issues and lack of sufficient attention/care/healing time compelling the commander to cancel the administrative demotion.  

On 29 Aug 12, the applicant participated in a FA and attained a composite score of 23.60, which constituted an unsatisfactory assessment.  

On 1 Oct 12, the applicant received a LOR for his 29 Aug 12 FA failure and administrative demotion action was initiated.  

On 3 Oct 12, the applicant responded to the LOR action, indicating his FA failures were due to complications related to his 14 Jan 11 cyst removal surgery.  

On 4 Oct 12, the applicant’s commander considered his response and decided the LOR would remain in effect and would be filed in his PIF/UIF.  

On 10 Oct 12, the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent to recommend administrative demotion to the grade of airman first class (E-3).  The reason for the action included his failure of three FAs in a 24 month period for which a UIF was established and he received two LORs.

On 10 Oct 12, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and elected to make an oral presentation to his commander.  After considering the applicant’s appeal,  the commander decided to continue the administrative demotion action.  

On 30 Oct 12, the applicant’s first sergeant requested a medical records review or medical evaluation be conducted to rule out any medical condition that has or would preclude the applicant from achieving a passing FA score.  A Family Practice Physician reviewed and evaluated all pertinent medical records relating to the applicant’s fitness and determined there was no medical condition precluding the applicant from taking and passing the portions of the fitness test that he had been assigned.  

On 14 Nov 12, the demotion action was found legally sufficient.  

On 19 Nov 12, the applicant’s commander issued him a final notification of administrative demotion, indicating in accordance with AFI 36-2502, chapter 6, paragraph 6.3.5, he was demoted to the permanent grade of E-3, with a date of rank, effective 19 Nov 12.  

On 27 Nov 12, the applicant participated in a FA, attaining 82.40 points, which constituted a satisfactory rating.

On 14 Dec 12, the applicant was administratively demoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3), effective and with a date of rank of 19 Nov 12.  
On 29 Jan 13, the applicant’s EPR, rendered for the period 21 Dec 11 thru 20 Dec 12, was referred to him for a rating of “Does Not Meet” standards in section III, Fitness, and comments related to his receipt of an administrative demotion as a result of three FA test failures within a 24 month timeframe.  

On 21 May 13, the applicant participated in an FA attaining a score of 80.90 points, which constituted a satisfactory assessment.

On 15 Jan 14, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge with a narrative reason for separation of miscellaneous/general reasons and was credited with five years, six months, and two days of total active service.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C. 

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial indicating there is lack of evidence to support the applicant’s request.  The applicant contends he had a medical condition that prevented him from achieving a passing fitness score.  In accordance with AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, Air Force Guidance Memorandum (AFGM) 2.1, paragraph 13, airman who become injured or ill during a FA and are unable to complete all required components will have the option of being evaluated at the medical treatment facility (MTF) but the test will still count unless rendered invalid by the unit commander.  Although the applicant provided documents from the General Surgery Clinic indicating he was having surgery for a recurrent pilonidal cyst and it may have contributed to physical training limitations in the past, his commander did not invalidate the FA.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 18 Oct 13 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 an error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence or record and noting the applicant’s contentions, we are not persuaded the contested FA is in error or unjust.  The documentation from the General Surgery Clinic is noted; however, in the absence of a response from the applicant’s commander, we find insufficient evidence to warrant disturbing the record.  However, should the applicant provide such evidence, we would be willing to reconsider his request based on new evidence.  Therefore, in view of the above and 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 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-2012-05166 in Executive Session on 23 Jan 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jan 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 18 Sep 13.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Oct 13.




                                   
                                   Acting Panel Chair

2