RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01916
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. His referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for
the period 21 Sep 2010 through 20 Aug 2011, be voided from his
records.
2. He receive supplemental promotion consideration to the rank
of technical sergeant (TSgt, E-6) beginning with cycle 12E6.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Due to medical reasons he was unable to take his fitness
assessment (FA) before the 20 Sep 2011 closeout date of his EPR.
He was scheduled to take his FA on 19 Sep 2011. However, on the
day of his FA he became ill and was diagnosed with a respiratory
infection. He rescheduled his FA for 26 Sep 2011 and he passed.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in
the grade of staff sergeant (E-5).
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of
the Air Force at Exhibits D and E.
________________________________________________________________
THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicants request to void
his referral EPR. DPSIM states his previous FA was administered
on 16 Jun 2011. He scored an unsatisfactory which required
him due to re-test on 14 Sep 2011. Had he tested on 19 Sep
2011, he still would have been overdue by five days. In
accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2905, Air Force Fitness Program,
airmen must retest within 90 days following an unsatisfactory
FA. Unit commanders may not mandate airmen retest any sooner
than the end of the 90 day reconditioning period; however,
airmen may volunteer to do so. Retesting in the first42 days
after an unsatisfactory FA requires unit commander approval
since recognized medical guidelines recommend 42 days as theminimum timeframe to recondition from unsatisfactory to
satisfactory status in a mannerthat reduces risk of injury. It
is the airman'sresponsibility to ensure heretests before the
90 day reconditioning period expires (non-currency begins on the91stday).
The complete DPSIMevaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSIDrecommends denialof the applicant's requestto void
the contestedEPR. DPSID states the applicantdid not file an
appeal through the EvaluationReport Appeals Boardunder theprovisions of AFI 36·2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted
EvaluationReports.
AFI 36-2905 states, It is every airman'sresponsibility to
maintain the standards set forth in this AFI 365 days a year.
The goal of the Fitness Program is to motivate all members toparticipate in a year-round physical conditioning program that
emphasizes total fitness, to include proper aerobic
conditioning, strength/flexibility training, and healthy
eating.In the applicant's case, he failed to retest and
remain current within 90 days after initially failing hisFA.
He also failed to ensure that he hada current FA on file as ofthe close-out of the contested EPR.
The evaluation was completed within Air Forcerequirements.
Therefore,to change or void this evaluation would be an
injustice to other airmen who have met Air Forcerequirementsand successfully maintained their fitness currency during the
rating period.
The complete DPSIDevaluationis at Exhibit D.
AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicants request for
supplemental promotion consideration. DPSOE states the referral
EPR in question rendered the applicant ineligible for promotion
consideration IAWAFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion
Programs. AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems,
states that a report is referred when "Does notMeet" blocks aremarked in the performance assessment section of AF Form 910/911.
In this case, the applicant did not meet Air Force fitness
standards due to a failed FA earlier in the reporting period.
The complete DPSOEevaluationis at Exhibit D.
2
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 21 Aug 2012, copies of the Air Force evaluations were
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within
30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this
office (Exhibit F).
________________________________________________________________
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 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 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 this application
in Executive Session on 5 Mar 2013, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR BC-2012-
01916 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 May 2012, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicants Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIM, dated 31 May 2012, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSID, dated 28 Jun 2012.
Exhibit E. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOE, dated 20 Jul 2012.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Aug 2012.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04477
She took another FA on 16 September 2011, receiving a score of 82.10, failing the sit-up component of the FA. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an 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. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 5 September...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04458
He was initially served a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failing the FA, which was later rescinded when his commander became aware that he should not have participated in the contested FA. His FA on 22 Aug 12 was in effect until his commander invalidated the test on 5 Sep 12. While the applicant filed an IG complaint related to his 22 Aug 12 FA failure and was subsequently issued the contested LOC and UIF for becoming noncurrent, the fact that his contact with the IG, preceded the LOC and...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03249
The FAAB removed the duplicate FA, dated 21 Jan 07 from the AFFMS but found insufficient evidence to warrant removal of the FAs, dated 15 Jul 12 and 10 Feb 13, and denied this portion of the request. The applicants last nine FA results are as follows: Date Days Since Last Test Composite Score Rating 9 Feb 14 62 46.90 Unsatisfactory 8 Dec 13 146 72.80 Unsatisfactory 14 Jul 13 69 7.50 Unsatisfactory 5 May 13 83 67.90 Unsatisfactory *10 Feb 13 27 46.90 Unsatisfactory 13 Jan...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05762
The 30 Space Wing Fitness Assessment Cell (FAC) would not allow him to take another official AC measurement that same day, so he retook the test on 5 Dec 12. On 4 Dec 12, the applicant took his FA; however, he did not meet the minimum requirement for the AC component with a measurement of 40. On the same day, his commander approved his request to retest within the 42 day reconditioning period in accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program. We took notice of the applicants...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03248
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicants military records are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C, and D. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant's request to change or void the contested EPR. DPSID states the applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04379
The applicant contends that, with approval from the Commander, she retested 6 days after the 8 Mar 11 FA, and 18 days after the 19 Apr 12 FA, with a score of 86.20 and 89.00 respectively. If the applicant had provided a memorandum from her commander stating he mandated these FAs (i.e. 14 Mar 11 and 7 May 12) we could have removed the FA retests. While the applicant has provided medical documentation indicating a medical condition and in her response to the Air Force evaluation, submitted...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04301
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicants request to have her 17 October 2011 FA removed from AFFMS. A complete copy of the AFPC/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 14 May 2013 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 03069
DPSIM states the applicant did provide documentation per their 31 Jul 2012 request. After she was given the opportunity to retest on 6 Jan 2012, she was still unable to complete the FA due to the injury she sustained from the original FA on 22 Dec 2011. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that her FA dated 22 Dec 2011 be...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02502
His records be corrected to show that he is now and was promotion eligible during the time he was placed on a Control Roster. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOA recommends closing the case, since the applicant's record currently reflects his requested actions and they do not have the history, nor are they the OPR for control roster actions; however, based on the information provided the previous RE code 4I would have been a result of...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 04871
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He disagrees with the findings of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility. The letter from his Flight Surgeon and 844th Communications Squadron Executive Director states that he was diagnosed with a medical condition that precluded him from achieving a passing fitness score and that he should be exempt from the cardio component...