RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02474
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Fitness Assessment (FA) dated 10 Apr 12, be removed 
from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS).

2.  If his FA is removed, he would also like his Enlisted 
Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 4 Mar 11 
through 1 May 12, be declared void and removed from his records. 

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During the run portion of the FA, he had a shooting pain down 
the front of his left shin.  He tried walking to see if the pain 
would go away, and when it did not, he proceeded to run again in 
order to finish his test.

On 18 Apr 12, he completed a mock test with his supervisor, he 
exceeded both components of muscle fitness; however, during the 
run portion he felt the same throbbing pain in his left shin.  

After completing the mock test, he was ordered to go to the 
Urgent Care Center at Wilford Hall to be checked out by the 
medical staff.  He was diagnosed with shin splints and referred 
to his primary care manager (PCM).  His PCM confirmed the 
diagnosis and he was placed on a 90-day profile.

He provides a statement from his PCM and a letter of support 
from his section commander.

His EPR is unjust because it is based on an injury that 
prevented him from successfully passing his physical fitness 
test during the timeframe of the report.

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in 
the grade of master sergeant.

His FA dated 10 Apr 12, reflects a total score of 59.50, which 
was recorded as “Unsatisfactory.”  

The applicant’s contested EPR rendered for the period 4 Mar 
11 thru 1 May 12 contains a “5” rating; however, the report was 
marked as “Meets” in Section III, Block 2, Standards: 
Enforcement and Personal Adherance, Conduct, Character, Military 
Bearing and Customs and Courtesies; and Block 3, Fitness.

The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation 
Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, 
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  

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 Exhibits D and E. 

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial.  DPSIM states that on 27 Jun 12, a 
memorandum was sent to the applicant requesting additional 
documentation, specifically, copies of his AF Form 469, Duty 
Limiting Condition Report and AF Form 108, Physical Fitness 
Education and Intervention Processing, indicating that he had a 
preexisting condition that contributed to his fitness failure.

DPSIM states per AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program - Air Force 
Guidance Memorandum 4, Paragraph 10, “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.  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 
5 duty days or when capable based on the recommendations of the 
medical provider/MLO and the Exercise Physiologist (EP).  Scores 
can be entered in AFFMS on the 6th duty day if the commander does 
not invalidate test results.”

The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit B.

On 12 Feb 13, AFPC/DPSIM provided a corrected advisory opinion 
recommending partial approval by updating the cardio component 
of the FA dated 10 Apr 12, to reflect “exempt” in the AFFMS.  

DPSIM states the applicant provided documentation from the MTF 
validating his injury, the commander chose not to invalidate the 
entire assessment, but did invalidate the cardio component.  The 
commander’s memorandum serves as authorization to invalidate the 
cardio component only.  Additionally, there is no evidence to 
support removing any other FA component from the AFFMS. The AF 
Form 422 provided by the applicant clears him for testing on all 
other components.

The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPSID states based on the recommendation from DPSIM to only 
exempt the cardio portion of the applicant’s FA test and not 
remove the entire 10 Apr 12 FA, they recommend the AFBCMR deny 
the applicant’s request to void the contested EPR.

Based on this exemption of the cardio component, the applicant’s 
FA score would result in a passing score of 94.50.  The 
applicant is requesting that his EPR be removed with no 
justification/explanation from either himself or any of his 
rating officials who signed the report.  The contested report 
was marked down in Section III, Block 2; however, the applicant 
has not provided any substantial evidence that the “Meets” 
marking was clearly and solely based on the FA failure.  The 
applicant had three consecutive failed FAs during the contested 
rating period; this could have possibly been the explanation for 
the mark-down of “Meets” as opposed to “Above Average” or 
“Clearly Exceeds.”  The applicant only focuses on the 10 Apr 12 
failed FA, which essentially is irrelevant to this contested 
report, as the applicant had a subsequent passing score of 97.25 
as of the close-out date of this EPR; a passing score which was 
applied to this contested report.  Historically, the applicant 
appears to have had difficulty in maintaining Air Force 
standards, as shown in the applicant’s historical AFFMS report.  
Prior to the contested report, the applicant had numerous FA 
failures; thereby, indicating the cardio portion may not have 
been the only issue, rather the applicant’s inability to 
successfully meet the overall fitness standards.

It appears the applicant did not adequately prepare to take the 
fitness test within the contested rating period and that his own 
voluntary decision to take the fitness test (being well aware of 
the possible injuries) resulted in the three consecutive fitness 
failures that perhaps caused the mark-down on the contested EPR.  
Nevertheless, it was ultimately the applicant’s responsibility 
to ensure that he was properly prepared for his FAs.  Although 
the applicant may feel that this was an injustice, there were 
avenues to ensure that any medical issues were taken into 
consideration prior to the report close-out date; not only by 
the rating chain, but with the proper authorities within the 
medical community.  Therefore, to change or void this evaluation 
would be an injustice to other Airmen which have consulted with 
the medical community and received the proper medical profiles 
regarding the fitness program or the other Airmen which have met 
the regulatory Air Force requirements.

The evaluation was completed within the regulatory Air Force 
requirements and procedures.  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 burden of proof is on the applicant to 
substantiate 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 E.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 17 Sep 12, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.  To 
date, a response has not been received (Exhibit C).

On 14 Mar 13, copies of the additional Air Force evaluations 
were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 
days.  To date, a response has not been received (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 an error or injustice.  After 
carefully reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded 
that the applicant’s Fitness Assessment (FA) dated 10 Apr 12 or 
the contested report should be removed.  Therefore, 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 that the applicant has failed to sustain his 
burden of proof that he has suffered an error or injustice.  In 
view of the above and absent evidence to the contrary, we find 
no basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

4.  Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has 
been presented to warrant partial relief.  After carefully 
considering the evidence of record, we agree with the 
recommendation made by DPSIM to update the cardio component of 
his FA dated 10 Apr 12, to reflect “exempt” in the AFFMS.  We 
note this will change his overall composite score to reflect a 
passing score of 94.50.  Accordingly, we recommend his records 
be corrected to the extent 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 the 
cardio component of his Fitness Assessment (FA) dated 10 Apr 12, 
reflect “exempt” in the Air Force Fitness Management System 
(AFFMS).

________________________________________________________________
_

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-02474 in Executive Session on 28 Mar 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Jun 12, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 7 Sep 12, w/atch.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Sep 12.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 12 Feb 13.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 13 Mar 13.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 14 Mar 13, w/atchs.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair
4


5