Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01536
Original file (BC-2012-01536.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-01536 
COUNSEL: NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: YES 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His Fitness assessment (FA) failure dated 10 Aug 11 be removed 
from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS).  
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
1. He  failed  to  meet  the  minimum  sit-up  component  on  his  FA 
because  the  fitness  assessment  cell  (FAC)  monitor  stated  “he 
was lifting his hips.”  He did not attempt to perform the run 
component  because  the  FAC  monitor  stated  it  was  the  member’s 
option to continue with the remainder of the assessment for a 
component failure.   
 
2. The  FAC  staff  was  not  using  Air  Force  Guidance  Memorandum 
(AFGM)  2.1  for  AFI  36-2905,  Fitness  Program  for  determining 
what  constitutes  “lifting  of  hips”  per  the  revised  sit-up 
verbal instructions.  The tester never stated his buttocks was 
“leaving the floor.”   
 
3. Within 48 hours he performed the sit-up component of the FA 
for two Force Support Squadron (FSS) staff members, who stated 
there  was  nothing  wrong  with  his  sit-ups.    On  21  Jul  11,  he 
completed  a  Physical  Training  (PT)  test  at  the  Senior 
Noncommissioned Officer’s Academy (SNCOA) and scored an overall 
86.9  points  including  9.5  points  for    sit-ups.    His  previous 
eight  component  scores  were  above  the  minimum  required.    On 
1 Sep 11,  he  retested  (first  available  date/22  days  after  the 
failure) and scored an overall 92.20 points including 10 points 
for sit-ups. 
 
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
FA scores, AFI 36-2905 excerpts, emails and other documentation 
associated with his request.  
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
 
 

  
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 The  applicant  is  currently  serving  in  the  Regular  Air 

   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

Sit-up Score 
50 
32 
50 
37 
47 
49 
49 
46 
40 

Force in the grade of master sergeant.  
 
On  2  May  12,  AFPC/DPSIM  requested  the  applicant  provide 
additional supporting documentation to substantiate his claim.  
Specifically,  a  letter  from  the  FAC  personnel  that  the  sit-up 
component of the FA in question was not conducted in accordance 
with  (IAW)  AFI  36-2905.    Additionally,  DPSIM  requested  the 
applicant  provide  the  signed  score  sheet  for  the  FA  conducted 
on 10 Aug 11.   
 
The following is a summary of the applicant’s sit-up scores: 
 
  Date 
 
  9/1/11 
  *8/10/11 
  2/24/11 
  8/20/10 
  2/19/10 
  2/27/09 
  2/6/08 
  2/23/07 
  2/23/06 
 
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained  in  the  letter  prepared  by  the  appropriate  office  of 
the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSIM  recommends  denial.    DPSIM  states  the  applicant 
failed to provide the requested documentation.   
 
The complete 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  6  Aug  12  for  review  and  comment  within  30 days 
(Exhibit  D).  As  of  this  date,  this  office  has  not  received  a 
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.    The  applicant 
contends  his  sit-ups,  though  not  counted,  were  conducted  in 
accordance  with  (IAW)  Air  Force  Instructions  causing  him  to 
fail  his  FA.    We  note  the  Air  Force  office  of  primary 
responsibility  recommends  denial  and  states  the  applicant 
failed to provide supporting documentation to substantiate his 
claim.    However,  after  a  careful  review  of  the  available 
evidence, we believe relief is warranted.  In this respect, we 
note that prior to the contested sit-up score dated 11 Aug 11, 
the applicant received the maximum score on eight of his last 
nine  attempts,  thus  raising  doubt  as  to  the  validity  of  his 
sit-up score.  Therefore, in the interest of justice, we find 
the  evidence  sufficient  to  grant  the  requested  relief  and 
recommend the records be corrected as indicated below.   
 
4.  The  applicant’s  case  is  adequately  documented  and  it  has 
not  been  shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without 
counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues 
involved.    Therefore,  the  request  for  a  hearing  is  not 
favorably considered. 
 
_______________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 
 
The  pertinent  military  records  of  the  Department  of  the  Air 
Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that the 
Fitness Assessment (FA) dated 10 August 2011, be, and hereby is 
declared void and removed from his records.  
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
The following members of the Board considered BC-2012-01536 in 
Executive Session on 5 Nov 12 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Panel Chair 
Member 
Member 

 
 

  
 

 

 
The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2012-01536 was considered: 

 
   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Sep 11, w/atchs. 
   Exhibit B.  Letter. AFPC/DPSIM, dated 2 May 12. 
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 16 Ju1 12, w/atchs. 
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Aug 12.  
 
 
 
 
   
   
 

 
Panel Chair 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03983

    Original file (BC 2013 03983.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, the FAC waited until 45 seconds into the assessment to tell the applicant to “fix her body.” She has never failed an FA before or since the contested assessment. FAC augmentee or another member paired to accomplish muscle fitness components will monitor and count the correct number of push-ups. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Mar 14.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03908

    Original file (BC 2013 03908.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 29 Nov 12, the applicant participated in the contested FA and failed to attain the minimum score in the cardio component. On 14 Feb 14, the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB) disapproved the applicant’s request for relief on the basis that the applicant should not have completed the contested FAs once she became injured; additionally, the applicant did not provide a commander’s invalidation memorandum invalidating contested FAs. For Regular Air Force and AGR, they will enter the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05369

    Original file (BC 2012 05369.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    DPSIM states that the applicant provided a memorandum from the Director, Fitness and Sports Complex at Kadena Air Base, Japan which states her staff was aware of the manufacturer’s guidance that HR monitors can cause erratic readings and have previously separated walkers after crossing the finish line to keep their distance to avoid syncing with other HR monitors worn by other walkers. After he completed the cardio component of the FA, he had a 20 minute argument with three of the FACs and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02524

    Original file (BC 2013 02524.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    This will count as one sit-up.” The applicant’s last 3 FA results are as follows: Date Composite Score Sit-ups Rating 22 Mar 2013 94.80 49 Excellent *05 Mar 2013 85.30 39 Unsatisfactory 05 Mar 2012 93.70 47 Excellent *Contested FA On 16 Oct 13, a similar request was considered and denied by the Fitness Assessments Appeals Board (FAAB) due to “Insufficient evidence; specifically witness statement to support injustice.” ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03583

    Original file (BC 2013 03583.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03583 XXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Fitness Assessment (FA), dated 14 May 12 be declared void and removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). Moreover, the FAC manager’s opinion is based on a demonstration by the applicant after the contested FA was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00538

    Original file (BC 2014 00538.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00538 XXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Fitness Assessment (FA), dated 6 Jun 13 (actual test in AFFMS is 25 Jun 13) be declared void and removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). After completing 37 repetitions of the sit-up component of the FA, the FAC administrator terminated the test 5 seconds early due to the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05107

    Original file (BC 2012 05107.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05107 COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Fitness Assessment (FA), dated 21 Sep 2012, be removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). The applicant did not provide any evidence his 1.0 mile walk was improperly administered during the FA. The 21 Sep 2012 FA was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02064

    Original file (BC 2013 02064.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove FA score from AFFMS dated 28 Aug 12. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05600

    Original file (BC 2012 05600.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05600 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 14 October 2012 Fitness Assessment (FA) score be declared void and removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). On 16 October 2012, the applicant’s commander indicated he was aware that the applicant did not complete the FA and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01779

    Original file (BC-2012-01779.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant did not meet the minimum component for the waist measurement and therefore received an unsatisfactory rating for the fitness test. The complete AFPC/DPSIM evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 28 Aug 12 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). The applicant contends that his waist...