RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04301 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. Her 17 October 2011 Fitness Assessment (FA) score be 
declared void and removed from the Air Force Fitness Management 
System (AFFMS). 

 

2. Her AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) (AB thru 
TSgt), rendered for the period 19 October 2010 thru 18 October 
2011, be declared void and removed from her records. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. She was forced to take her FA the day before the close-out 
of her EPR due to an error in the AFFMS which erroneously 
indicated she was exempt from testing. Subsequently, she failed 
the contested FA as a result of undiagnosed bronchitis and 
sinusitis that affected the cardio component of her testing. 

 

2. Her supervision knew of her diagnosis, but failed to request 
an extension of the close-out of the contested EPR to give her 
an opportunity to re-test; instead, they finalized her EPR, and 
the annotated FA failure, causing the contested report to be a 
referral. 

 

The applicant’s 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). 

 

On 17 October 2011, the applicant participated in the contested 
FA, attaining a composite score of 62.00, which constituted an 
unsatisfactory assessment. 

 

On 18 October 2011, the contested EPR closed out. 

 


On 18 October 2011, the applicant was diagnosed with acute 
bronchitis and sinusitis by the Lourdes Medical Center of 
Burlington County at Deborah Emergency Medicine. 

 

On 1 December 2011, the contested EPR was referred to the 
applicant due to a rating and comments relative to the contested 
FA failure. 

 

On 4 October 2012, AFPC/DPSIM requested the applicant provide 
additional supporting documentation to substantiate her claim. 
Specifically, a copy of her Air Force (AF) Form 469, Duty 
Limiting Condition (DLC) Report; AF Form 422, Notification of 
Air Force Member’s Qualification Status; and signed fitness 
assessment score sheet. However, there is no evidence the 
applicant responded to the request. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to have 
her 17 October 2011 FA removed from AFFMS. In accordance with 
Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2905, Fitness Program, if an 
airman becomes injured or ill during the FA, he/she will have 
the option of being evaluated at a Medical Treatment Facility 
(MTF). If an injury/illness is validated and the unit commander 
is provided supporting medical documentation, said FA may be 
invalidated; otherwise, the original FA will count. Also, a 
Fitness Screening Questionnaire (FSQ) is reviewed prior to 
allowing any member to conduct an official FA. Any high risk 
response is noted and forwarded to the MTF for further 
disposition. If there is a need for a component exemption, an 
AF Form 422 must be provided to the member by the MTF for 
his/her commander’s approval. In this case, the applicant did 
not offer any evidence that she provided her commander with an 
AF Form 422 or that the commander determined she should be 
exempt from the cardio component of her test. More importantly, 
the applicant failed to provide a copy of an AF Form 108, Physical Fitness Education and Intervention Processing, 
indicating that she had a preexisting condition that contributed 
to her 17 October 2011 FA failure. In addition, the applicant 
did not notify her commander within one duty day of an 
injury/illness to ensure communication regarding test validity 
with the MTF and Fitness Assessment Cell (FAC) staff occurred 
prior to her score entry into AFFMS. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
remove the contested referral EPR. The applicant asserts that 
her supervision was aware of her diagnosis and never requested 
her commander request an extension of the close-out date of her 
EPR. Although, it is not mandatory for a commander to request 
an extension past the annual date when an EPR is due, the 


applicant did not provide any supporting documentation from the 
rating chain claiming they were aware of her situation or that 
they believed the failed FA should be invalidated. The 
applicant provided a copy of a report from the Lourdes Medical 
Center; however, it was her responsibility to pursue any needed 
profile(s) with her Primary Care Manager (PCM). There is no 
evidence to show that she made any attempts prior to, during, or 
after her contested FA to obtain the needed documentation for 
her unit commander to invalidate her test. 

 

While the applicant claims that an error in AFFMS forced her to 
take her PT test the day before her EPR closed out, she was 
actually two months overdue for testing. Nevertheless, in 
accordance with AFI 36-2905, it is every Airman’s responsibility 
to maintain fitness standards throughout the year. It appears 
the applicant failed to maintain these prescribed standards 
which resulted in an unsatisfactory FA on 17 October 2011. 
Based on this assessment, the rating and comments relative to 
her FA failure are valid and appropriate as recorded on the 
contested evaluation in accordance with all applicable Air Force 
policies and procedures. 

 

The applicant may feel this is an injustice; however, there are 
avenues to ensure that any medical issues are taken into 
consideration, not by the rating chain, but with the proper 
authorities within the medical community. To change or void 
this EPR would be an injustice to other Airmen who consulted 
with the medical community and received proper medical profiles 
regarding the fitness program or the other Airmen who have met 
the regulatory Air Force requirements. Also, the applicant did 
not file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board 
(ERAB). 

 

A complete of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

AFPC/DPSOE indicates they have no equity in the decision of the 
applicant’s request but defers to the recommendations of 
AFPC/DPSIM and AFPC/DPSID. Should the failed fitness assessment 
and referral EPR be removed, the applicant would be entitled to 
supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of technical 
sergeant (E-6) beginning with cycle 12E6. 

 

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 F). As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 


 

 

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 a 
thorough review of the evidence presented, we are not persuaded 
that the fitness assessment or the contested EPR are erroneous 
or unjust as recorded. Therefore, we agree with the opinions 
and recommendations of the Air Force offices of responsibility 
and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that 
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 
In the absence of persuasive 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-2012-04301 in Executive Session on 13 June 2013, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 September 2012, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 21 January 2013, 

 w/atchs. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 22 April 2013. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 29 April 2013 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 May 2013. 

 

 

 Panel Chair