RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-02515
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His grade of staff sergeant (SSgt/E-5) be restored.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After his FA failure, he was diagnosed with extrinsic asthma and 
allergic rhinitis and his medical provider indicates that this 
was the cause of his FA failure.  He was demoted to the grade of 
senior airman (SrA/E-4); however, the diagnosis came after the 
six month period that allows his commander to revoke the 
demotion order.  His new commander and first sergeant supports 
his request to restore his rank to SSgt based on inconsistent 
diagnoses and noted progression with physical fitness.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement; copies of letters of support from his commander, 
first sergeant and members of his unit; extracts from his 
medical records; FA records, and other supporting documents.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant failed his fitness assessments four times between 
30 Nov 09 and 16 Dec 10 (30 Nov 09; 24 Jun 10; 22 Sep 10, and 
16 Dec 10).  
On 18 Jan 11, the applicant received notification of demotion 
action under AFI 36- 2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Program, 
paragraph 6.3.5, Failure to Keep Fit. The commander reviewed 
statements submitted by the applicant and chose to continue 
demotion processing action.  The demotion authority agreed with 
the commander's recommendation and directed the applicant be 
demoted to the rank of senior airman (SrA) effective 18 Feb 11.

On 28 Oct 11, the applicant was diagnosed by a pulmonary 
specialist with extrinsic asthma and allergic rhinitis.  

On 31 Dec 12, the applicant was honorably released from active 
duty and transferred to the Air Force Reserve.  He was separated 
in the grade of SrA, with a reason for separation of reduction 
in force.  He was credited with 10 years, 10 months, and 12 days 
of active duty service.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIM did not provide a recommendation.  They note, the 
applicant is not asking to have any of his fitness test failures 
removed from AFFMS and his commander administered the actions in 
accordance with AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program.  After reviewing 
his fitness history, he received an administrative demotion by 
his unit commander for numerous fitness failures.  The applicant 
was diagnosed afterwards with extrinsic asthma and allergic 
rhinitis which his doctor believes affected his ability to pass 
the fitness assessment.  However, this diagnosis came after the 
six-month period that allows for revocation of an administrative 
demotion.

The complete DPSIM evaluation, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit B.

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial, noting that the demotion action 
taken against the applicant was procedurally correct and there 
is no evidence there were any irregularities or that the case 
was mishandled in any way.  The commander acted within his 
authority to demote the applicant from SSgt to SrA for his 
failure to maintain fitness standards based on the information 
he had at that time.  

In accordance with AFI 36-2905, Chapter 9, paragraphs 9.1.2. 
and 9.1.5.2., unit commanders may take adverse administrative 
action upon a member's unsatisfactory fitness score on an 
official fitness assessment.  Attachment 19 provides commanders 
guidance when selecting the appropriate administrative and 
personnel actions for members who fail to attain physical 
fitness standards.  Unit commanders shall make a discharge or 
retention recommendation to the Installation commander (or 
special/general court-martial convening authority in the member's 
chain of command) when an individual remains in the 
Unsatisfactory fitness category for a continuous 12-month period 
or receives four Unsatisfactory FA scores in a 24-month period. 
According to the medical group, he had no medical condition that 
would preclude him from achieving a passing score and they 
attributed his fitness failures to obesity and aerobic 
deconditioning.

In this case, the commander could have recommended 
administrative separation due to the applicant's poor fitness 
score for a period of more than 12 months.  Instead, he elected 
administrative demotion.

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA recommends denial, stating, in part, that it is there 
opinion the applicant's demotion was within the commander and 
demotion authority's discretion, was in compliance with the 
applicable instructions, and was not contrary to any medical 
opinion or assessment.  They found no evidence of an error or 
injustice. 

AFI 36-2502, lays out the basis for airman demotion.  Paragraph 
6.3.5 specifically states airmen may be demoted for failing to 
maintain or demonstrate the ability and willingness to attain 
physical standards.  In paragraph 6.1.6, it states if the 
demotion authority restores the airman's original grade 
following the demotion, he or she must do so between three and 
six months after the effective date of the demotion. It goes on 
to state that restoring a grade should be an uncommon 
occurrence.

Based on the available evidence, which includes statements from 
the applicant's current commander and first sergeant, medical 
records, FA history since 2004, and the demotion action file; 
the demotion action was procedurally correct and there is no 
evidence that the applicant's demotion was mishandled in any 
way.  Shortly after his Dec 10 FA failure, the applicant had a 
medical appointment (in Jan 11).  During that medical 
appointment, the applicant did not complain about any breathing 
issues and was not diagnosed with any condition that would have 
prevented him from passing his FA.  He was not diagnosed with 
asthma until ten months after his fourth FA failure.  Based on 
the information available to the commander at the time and the 
information now available, the commander's decision to initiate 
a demotion action and the demotion authority's decision to 
demote the applicant were in compliance with the applicable 
instructions and both acted within their discretion.

The governing directives indicate that an administrative 
demotion is a recommended action for a fourth failure.  In fact, 
the commander could have initiated discharge but elected 
demotion instead.  While the applicant submitted a medical 
report stating he may have been unable to pass the FA due to a 
medical condition, the weight of the evidence shows otherwise.  

Even though there is no error warranting relief in the 
applicant's case, there remains the potential issue of 
injustice.  The commander and demotion authority's actions were 
proper under the applicable instructions and are supported by 
the evidence available both at the time and now.  While the 
applicant's pulmonary specialist opined in Feb 12 that the 
asthma may have impacted his ability to pass prior FAs, the 
Chief of Medical Staff, is of the opinion that the applicant's 
FA failures were the result of obesity and deconditioning, not 
asthma.  In any event, the applicant's two FA failures preceding 
the demotion were not caused by the run component.  Had the 
applicant been exempt from the run component of his 
22 Sep 10 and 16 Dec 10 FAs, he still would have failed these 
FAs, because of low abdominal circumference and sit-up scores.

The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 10 Dec 12 for review and comment within 30 days.  
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit E).

________________________________________________________________

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 that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice.  While we note the comments of the 
applicant’s former commander that assumed command following the 
demotion-imposing commander’s departure, former first sergeant, 
members of his former unit and their desire to overturn the 
applicant’s demotion, there is no conclusive documentation that 
he had a medical condition that precluded him from successfully 
completing his FAs; nor has the applicant provided any evidence 
which would lead us to believe the commander’s action was 
contrary to the provisions of the governing directives, unduly 
harsh, or inappropriate.  In view of the above and 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 the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material 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.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-02515 in Executive Session on 24 January 2013, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 May 12, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 11 Sep 12, w/atchs.  
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 28 Sep 12.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 19 Nov 12.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Dec 12.




                                   Panel Chair