RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03003
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His 30 Apr 12 Fitness Assessment (FA) be removed from the AirForce Fitness Management System (AFFMS).
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was injured during a unit PT session two days prior to hisscheduled FA. His injury resulted in him being placed on aprofile and his FA consisted only of a measurement of hisabdominal circumference (AC). Had he not been on a profile, hewould have passed his FA.
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies ofdocuments extracted from his military personnel records andmedical records.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is atExhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force inthe grade of staff sergeant (E-5).
On 30 Apr 12, the applicant participated in the contested FA,
attaining a composite score of 67.50, which constituted anunsatisfactory assessment.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application arecontained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office ofthe Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial, noting that Air Force Instruction(AFI) 36-2905, Fitness Program, states RegAF, AFR, and ANG
(Title 10) Airmen who test in all four components and score anExcellent (90 or above) are only required to test once a year.
Airmen who score Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory will continue totest twice a year. Airmen are responsible for maintainingcurrency standards. To remain current, Airmen must be assessedby the last day of the month, six calendar months following theprevious passing test. The applicant could have tested any timeprior to 30 Apr 12 but chose to wait to until the very last dayof the month to test.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation, with attachments,
is at Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
He reiterates that his waist measurement only FA was unfairgiven his circumstances. While he does not deny that his testresulte was unsatisfactory, he believes the circumstances thatled to his FA failure caused it to be an injustice. His FA test
was originally scheduled for 20 Apr 12 but on 18 Apr 12, he wasinjured during a unit PT session. After visiting with his PCM,
he was placed on a profile that exempted him from all componentsof the FA with the exception of the waist measurement. Had he
not been exempt from the other components of the assessment, hewould have passed it. In a subsequent submission, the applicantcites a previsous AFBCMR case where relief was granted undersimilar circumstances. In this case, the member had five FAfailures removed and his records corrected to reflect the
members profile exempted him from all components of the FA. In
support of his response, the applicant provides two supportingstatements, with attachments.
The applicants complete responses, with attachments, are atExhibits E and 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. The
applicant contends that were it not for his injury just prior to
his scheduled fitness assessment (FA), he would not have been
precluded from participating in all four components of the FA and
would have passed the contested FA. However, after a thorough
review of the evidence of record and the applicants complete
submission, including his responses to the Air Force evaluation,
2
we are not convinced that he is the victim of an error or
injustice. While the applicant argues that his injury precluded
him from attaining a passing score on the contest FA, he has
provided no evidence to indicate that he should have been exempt
from all four components of the test, or that the contested FA,
where he was assessed based only on his waist measurement, was
erroneously administered. We also note the applicants argument
that he is similarly situated to another applicant before the
AFBCMR who was successful in his appeal to have his fitness
scores removed from his records, essentially asserting that
similar consideration should be applied to his case and the
requested relief granted. We do not agree. In this respect, we
note that each case before this Board is considered on its own
merits, and precedent does not bind us. While we do strive for
consistency in the manner in which evidence is evaluated and
analyzed, we are not bound to recommend relief in one
circumstance simply because the situation being reviewed appears
similar to another case. In the case cited by the applicant, the
Board was convinced by the evidence presented that the applicant
in question should not have been allowed to participte in several
FAs as he should have been precluded from doing so. However, in
the instant case, we do not find the evidence sufficient to
undermine the determination of his medical providers or convince
us that his FA was erroneously administered based on said
profile. 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 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-2012-03003 in Executive Session on 29 Jan 13 and 12 Feb
13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
3
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2012-03003 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Jul 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicants Military Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 20 Jul 12.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Aug 12.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Aug 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Jan 13, w/atchs.
Panel Chair
4
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05000
DPSIM further recommends the fitness assessments dated 27 Sep 11, 30 Dec 11, and 28 Mar 12 be corrected to reflect the applicant was exempt from the waist measurement component of these FAs. The complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He was told he had to participate in the abdominal circumference for the 29 Mar 11 FA, not knowing there was an AF Form 422...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02597
While the applicant provided AF Forms 422, Notification of Air Force Members Qualification Status, dated 2 May 2011, 11 October 2011, and 29 January 2012, which exempted her from the 1.5 mile run, pushups, and sit-up components of the contested FAs, she was evaluated on the height, weight, and abdominal circumference in accordance with her profile. Therefore, we find it reasonable to conclude that had her condition been timely diagnosed, competent authority would likely have exempted her...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04690
On 24 March 2011, the applicant was issued an AF Form 422, Notification of Air Force Members Qualification Status, which exempted him from the 1.5 mile run and sit-up components of the FA, until 10 May 2011. On 17 May 2011, the applicant was issued an AF Form 422, which exempted him from the 1.5 mile run and sit-up components of the FA, until 10 June 2011. We took notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02006
His providers memorandum for record (MFR) stated he had a medical condition that prevented him from attaining a passing score on the walking component of his FA; however, the test was not removed from his records. Upon expiration of your 42 days reconditioning, you are cleared to test in all components of the AF Fitness Test. On 29 May 12, a memorandum was sent to applicant requesting additional documentation for removal of his FA dated 29 Oct 10. While he contends that he was...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04664
The complete AFPC/DPSIDE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: His chronic medical condition affected his Physical Training (PT). The applicant contends his chronic back pain precluded him from passing four fitness assessments (FA) and ultimately resulted in him receiving the contested referral enlisted performance report (EPR). While the applicant has provided a supporting statement from...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03771
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03771 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 18 Jul 13 Fitness Assessment (FA) be declared void and removed from his records. Therefore, in view of the fact the evidence before us indicates the applicants AC measurement has never been above 35.5 inches (2006), and his AC measurement was recorded as 32.5 inches during an FA taking place only days after...
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 02738
As a result we have concluded that the recorded AC scores are not an accurate reflection of applicant's abdominal circumference. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment, was forwarded to the applicant on 6 Dec 13 for review and comment within 30 days. The applicant has provided documentation validating he had a medical condition that affected his ability to pass the AC...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05794
In accordance with AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, to determine overall fitness, the Air Force uses an overall composite fitness score and minimum scores per three component areas: Aerobic Fitness (1.5 mile run), Body Composition (abdominal circumference measurement), and Muscular Fitness (number of push-ups and sit- ups completed within one minute each). On 24 Aug 12, an AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report, was issued which restricted the applicant from performing activities that...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05794
In accordance with AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, to determine overall fitness, the Air Force uses an overall composite fitness score and minimum scores per three component areas: Aerobic Fitness (1.5 mile run), Body Composition (abdominal circumference measurement), and Muscular Fitness (number of push-ups and sit- ups completed within one minute each). On 24 Aug 12, an AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report, was issued which restricted the applicant from performing activities that...