AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00554 
COUNSEL: NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

IN THE MATTER OF:   
   
     
 
 
 
     
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:  
 
1. Her  fitness  assessments  dated  22  February  2011,  1  June  2011 
and  31  August  2011  be  removed  from  the  Air  Force  Fitness 
Management System (AFFMS). 
 
2. The  enlisted  performance  report  with  the  close-out  date  of 
4 August 2011 be changed from a referred 4 to a non-referred 4. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
She  should  have  been  exempt  from  all  components  following 
abdominal  surgery  on  9  January  2011.    Three  days  after  the 
surgery  she  developed  blood  clots  in  her  right  lung  and  was 
placed  on  blood  thinners.    While  on  this  medication,  she  could 
not  participate  in  any  type  of  exercise.    She  was  on  the 
medication until 9 June 2011, yet, was restricted from exercise 
until 13 February 2013.   
 
In  support  of  the  request,  the  applicant  provides  a  statement 
from her commander and excerpts of her medical records. 
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  is  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  and  serving 
in the grade of staff sergeant.  
 
Data  extracted  from  the  Air  Force  advisories  show  that  in 
January 2011, the applicant underwent a medical procedure.  She 
was  placed  on  convalescent  leave  for  two  weeks  and  received  a 
profile  exempting  her  from  exercising.    She  developed  two 
pulmonary  embolisms  and  was  placed  on  blood  thinners.    As  a 
result, she was restricted from exercising.   
 
The  applicant  was  exempted  from  the  sit-up,  push-up  and 
cardiovascular  components  of  the  fitness  assessments.    She 

received an unsatisfactory: her abdominal circumference measured 
at  35  inches  on  22  February  2011.    She  received  an 
unsatisfactory  on  1  June  2011:  her  abdominal  circumference 
measured  at  38  inches.    She  received  an  unsatisfactory  on 
31 August  2011:  her  abdominal  circumference  measured  at  38.50 
inches.   
 
She  received  a  referral  EPR  which  closed-out  on  4  August  2011 
stating she did not meet physical fitness standards. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSIM  recommends  partial  approval.    The  applicant  was 
placed  on  convalescent  leave  for  two  weeks  following  abdominal 
surgery  on  9  January  2011.    An  AF  Form  422  was  generated 
exempting  her  from  all  components  of  the  fitness  assessment 
except  the  abdominal  circumference.    Three  days  after  her 
abdominal  surgery,  she  was  placed  on  blood  thinners  and 
prohibited  from  exercise.    She  was  on  the  medication  until 
9 June 2011, and remains restricted from exercise until February 
2013. 
 
The member should have been exempted from the fitness assessment 
for 90 days following her surgery.  The fitness assessment dated 
22 February 2011 should be removed from AFFMS.   
 
The  remaining  fitness  assessments  (1  June  2011  and  31  August 
2011) are valid and should remain in AFFMS. 
 
The complete DPSIM evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. 
 
AFPC/DPSID  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s  request  to 
change the referral report to a non-referral.  A review of the 
applicant’s  AF  Form  422  indicates  she  was  exempt  from  the  sit-
up,  push-up  and  cardiovascular  components  of  the  assessment.  
She  was  not  exempted  from  the  abdominal  circumference.  
AFPC/DPSIM recommended the fitness assessment dated 22 February 
2011  be  removed.    They  further  stated  the  remaining  fitness 
assessments (1 June 2011 and 31 August 2011) were valid. 
 
During  that  timeframe,  no  medical  provider  recommended  the 
abdominal circumference component be exempted, despite the fact 
the  applicant  was  entitled  to  90  days  exemption  from  the 
abdominal  component.    The  1  June  2011,  fitness  assessment 
failure  is  the  assessment  that  caused  the  EPR  to  be  referred.  
The  referral  fitness  comment  as  well  as  the  “Does  Not  Meet” 
marking  in  Section  III,  Block  3,  is  valid  and  appropriate  as 
recorded  on  the  contested  evaluation.    Furthermore,  it  is  in 
accordance  with  all  applicable  Air  Force  policies  and 
guidelines.   
 

2 

The  applicant’s  medical  issues  were  properly  taken  into 
consideration  by  the  proper  authorities  within  the  military 
medical community.  A change or void to the contested EPR would 
be  an  injustice  to  other  airmen  who  have  consulted  with  the 
medical community and received proper medical profiles regarding 
the fitness program. 
 
An evaluation is considered to represent the rating chains best 
judgment at the time it is rendered.  Once a report is accepted 
for  filing,  only  strong  evidence  to  the  contrary  warrants 
correction  or  removal  from  an  individual’s  record.    The 
applicant  has  not  substantiated  the  contested  reports  were  not 
rendered  in  good  faith  by  all  evaluators  based  on  knowledge 
available at the time. 
 
The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. 
 
AFPC/DPSOE  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s  request  for 
supplemental  promotion  consideration.    The  first  time  the 
contested  report  would  have  been  considered  in  the  promotion 
process was cycle 12E6.  However, the referral EPR rendered her 
ineligible for promotion consideration.   
 
Should  the  Board  deem  the  fitness  assessments  date  1  June  2011 
and 31 August 2011 invalid and direct the EPR be changed from a 
referral  to  a  non-referral,  the  applicant  will  be  entitled  to 
supplemental  promotion  consideration  beginning  with  cycle  12E6, 
once tested. 
 
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
Copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the 
applicant  on  20  August  2102,  for  review  and  comment  within 
30 days (Exhibit F).  As of this date, this office has received 
no response. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
 
1.  The  applicant  has  exhausted  all  remedies  provided  by 
existing law or regulations. 
 
2.  The application was timely filed. 
 
3.  Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of an injustice to warrant relief.  We 
took  note  of  the  Air  Force  offices  of  primary  responsibility’s 
recommendation not to remove the fitness assessments or void the 
performance reports; however, based on the commander’s letter in 

3 

support  of  removing  the  fitness  assessments,  along  with  the 
physician’s  statement,  we  find  the  applicant’s  surgery  and 
subsequent medical issues had a direct impact on her ability to 
pass the referenced fitness assessments.  We also find that she 
exercised  due  diligence  and  continuously  sought  medical 
treatment  to  resolve  her  medical  issues.    Based  on  the 
foregoing,  we  recommend  the  records  be  corrected  as  indicated 
below.  
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 
 
The  pertinent  military  records  of  the  Department  of  the  Air 
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that: 
 
a. The fitness assessments dated 22 February 2011, 1 June 
  
2011 and 31 August 2011, be removed from the Air Force Fitness 
Management System (AFFMS). 
 
      b. The  AF  Form  910,  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (AB  thru 
TSgt)  rendered  for  the  period  5  August  2010  through  4  August 
2011, be declared void and removed from her records.  
 
      c. An  AF  Form  77,  Letter  of  Evaluation,  stating  the 
overall  rating  of  “4”  is  confirmed  for  the  rating  period 
5 August  2010  through  4  August  2011,  be  inserted  in  her  record 
in its proper sequence.  
 
It is further recommended that she be provided supplemental 
consideration  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  technical  sergeant 
for promotion cycle 12E6. 
 
If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent 
to  supplemental  consideration  that  are  separate  and  apart,  and 
unrelated to the issues involved in this application, that would 
have rendered the applicant ineligible for this promotion, such 
information will be documented and presented to the Board for a 
final  determination  on  the  individual’s  qualifications  for  the 
promotion. 
 
If  supplemental  promotion  consideration  results  in  the 
 
selection  for  promotion  to  any  higher  grade,  immediately  after 
such  promotion  the  records  shall  be  corrected  to  show  that  she 
was promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established 
by  the  supplemental  promotion  and  that  she  is  entitled  to  all 
pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number  BC-2012-00554  in  Executive  Session  on  2  October  2012 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 

4 

 
 
 

 
 
 

  Panel Chair 
  Member 
  Member 

 
 
 
 
The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-00554 was considered: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Feb 12, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 10 May 12, w/atch. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 28 Jun 12. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 20 Jul 12. 
Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Aug 12. 

 
Panel Chair 

 
 

 
 

  

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

5