RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00061 
COUNSEL: NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
       
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
1.  Her  AF  Form  910,  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR)  (AB  thru 
TSgt),  rendered  for  the  period  2  Jun  09  thru  1  Jun  10  be 
declared void and removed from her records.  
 
2. Her Fitness Assessment (FA) dated 29 Dec 10 be removed from 
the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS).  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
1. AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems states a 
promotion  recommendation  must  be  valid  and  realistic.    Her 
promotion recommendations are not valid and realistic due to her 
ineligibility in accordance with AFIs 41-210, Tricare Operations 
and  Patient  Administration  Function  and  AFI  36-3212,  Physical 
Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, and Separation.   
 
2. During  the  rating  period,  she  was  assigned  an  Assignment 
Availability  Code  37,  which  denotes,  “medical  defect/condition 
requires  Medical  Evaluation  Board  (MEB)  or  Physical  Evaluation 
Board  (PEB)  processing”  with  a  4T  profile,  which  requires 
written  disposition  of  a  MEB  prior  to  removal  of  the  code  for 
temporary duty (TDY) or permanent change of station (PCS).  
 
3. AFI  36-2905,  Fitness  Program  states  “if  an  airman  becomes 
injured  or  ill  during  the  FA  and  is  unable  to  complete  all 
required  components,  he/she  will  have  the  option  of  being 
evaluated  at  the  Medical  Treatment  Facility  (MTF)  but  his/her 
test  will  still  count  unless  rendered  invalid  by  the  unit 
commander.  She notified the fitness assessment cell (FAC) staff 
that  she  was  ill;  was  informed  to  call  the  MTF  and  her 
assessment  scorecard  was  annotated  “going  to  clinic.”    She  was 
given  an  appointment  and  seen  within  24  hours.    She  was 
diagnosed  with  bronchitis  and  was  given  medication  for  her 
abdominal  pain  as  a  result  of  scaring  from  her  hysterectomy  in 
Sep 10.   
 
4. In  addition,  AFI  36-2905,  states  “if  the  medical  evaluation 
validates the illness/injury, the unit commander may invalidate 
the  test  results;  the  airman  will  then  be  required  to  retest 
within  five  duty  days  or  when  capable  based  on  the 
recommendations of the medical provider, medical liaison officer 

(MLO)  and  the  exercise  physiologist  (EP).”    She  requested  her 
unit commander invalidate the test results and she be given the 
opportunity  to  retest  within  five  duty  days;  however,  her 
request was denied because her  Duty  Limiting  Condition form and 
quarters  recommendation  were  dated  the  day  after  her  FA.    The 
AFI does not mandate the evaluation at the MTF must be the same 
day as the FA.   
 
In support of her requests, the applicant provides copies of her 
AF  Form  910;  AF  Form  469,  Duty  Limiting  Condition  Report;  DD 
Form  2870,  Authorization  for  Disclosure  of  Medical  or  Dental 
Information;  Standard  Forms  (SF)  600,  Chronological  Record  of 
Medical  Care;  AF  Form  422,  Notification  of  Air  Force  Member’s 
Qualification  Status,  MEB  final  disposition  and  other 
documentation associated with her request.  
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  is  currently  serving  on  active  duty  in  the  grade 
of SSgt.  
 
On  13  Mar  12,  AFPC/DPSIM  requested  the  applicant  provide 
additional  supporting  documentation  to  substantiate  her  claim.  
Specifically,  copies  of  an  AF  Form  469  and  AF  Form  422, 
documenting  her  limitations  and  exemptions.    In  response  to 
DPSIM’s  request,  the  applicant  responded  via  letter,  dated  10 
Apr 12 stating a new AF Form 469 was generated upon receipt of 
the  decision  to  return  her  to  duty  and  a  subsequent  422  was 
approved in Mar 2011  
 
On  18  Apr  12,  AFPC/DPSIM  again  requested  the  applicant  provide 
additional 
claim.  
Specifically,  a  signed  AF  Form  108,  Physical  Fitness  Education 
and  Intervention  Processing  indicating  her  injury  hindered  her 
from achieving a passing FA during Dec 10.  The applicant failed 
to provide the requested documentation.  
 
The  applicant  did  file  an  appeal  through  the  Evaluation  Report 
Appeals  Board  (ERAB)  under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-2401, 
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports; however, the 
ERAB  was  not  convinced  the  report  was  unjust  or  inaccurate  and 
denied the applicant’s request for relief.  
 
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibit C.   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 

documentation 

to 

substantiate 

her 

 

2

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void 
the  contested  report.    AFI  36-2401  clearly  states  that  an 
applicant may not make statements that cannot be supported with 
evidence.    Unsubstantiated  conjecture  about  the  motives  of  the 
evaluators or how or why the report turned out as it did, do not 
contribute to the case.  The applicant has not provided factual, 
specific  and  substantiated  information  that  is  from  credible 
officials  based  on  firsthand  observation  or  knowledge.  
Moreover, attachment 1, paragraph A1.3 states the most effective 
evidence  consists  of  statements  from  the  evaluators  who  signed 
the  report  or  from  other  individuals  in  the  rating  chain  when 
the report was signed.  However, statements from the evaluators 
during  the  contested  period  are  conspicuously  absent.    Without 
the benefit of these statements, they can only conclude the EPR 
was accurate as written when it became a matter of record.  To 
effectively, challenge an EPR, it is necessary to hear from all 
the members of the rating chain – not only for support, but also 
for  clarification/explanation.    The  applicant  has  failed  to 
provide any information/support from the rating chain of record 
on  the  contested  EPR.    In  the  absence  of  information/support 
from  evaluators,  official  substantiation  of  error  or  injustice 
from  the  Inspector  General  or  Military  Equal  Opportunity  and 
Treatment  is  appropriate,  but  not  provided  in  this  case.    The 
subject  report  was  accomplished  in  direct  accordance  with 
applicable regulations and guidance.   
 
An  evaluation  report  is  considered  to  represent  the  rating 
chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered.  Once a report 
is  accepted  for  file,  only  strong  evidence  to  the  contrary 
warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record.  The 
applicant  has  not  substantiated  that  the  contested  report  was 
not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge 
available at the time. 
 
The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to have 
her  FA  dated  29  Dec  10,  deleted  from  AFFMS.    DPSIM  states  the 
applicant  failed  to  provide  the  requested  documentation, 
specifically,  the  AF  Form  108  indicating  her  injury  prevented 
her from achieving a passing score. 
 
The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit D.  
 
AFPC/DPSOE defers to the recommendation of DPSID.  DPSOE states 
DPSID  reviewed  the  case  and  determined  the  contested  report  is 
valid as written. 
 
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

3

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
Copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the 
applicant  on  22  Aug  12  for  review  and  comment  within  30  days 
(Exhibit F).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
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 
careful  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 persuasive 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-2012-00061 in Executive Session on 5 Nov 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
Panel Chair 
 
 
Member 
 
Member 
  
 
 
 
 

  
  
  

 
 
 

 

4

The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-00061 was considered: 
 
   Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 19 Dec 11, w/atchs. 
   Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPISM, 13 Mar 12 
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 27 Feb 12. 
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 20 Jun 12. 
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 13 Jul 12. 
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 22 Aug 12.  
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Panel Chair 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

5