RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04458 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His Fitness Assessment (FA), dated 22 Aug 12, be removed from 
the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). 

 

2. His Letter of Counseling (LOC) with Unfavorable Information 
File (UIF), dated 18 Sep 12, be removed from his military 
personnel records. 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. He was forced to take the contested FA before the full 90-
day reconditioning period had expired, in violation of AFI 36-
2905, Guidance Memorandum 4. 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of Reprimand (LOR) for failing the FA, which was later rescinded 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. 

 

2. The LOC and UIF he received as a result of being “non-
current” in the fitness program is invalid and therefore, 
baseless and should be removed from his records. His 90th day to 
take the FA was on 28 Aug 12 but he could not have tested on 
that day due to the base being shut down because of a hurricane. 

 

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

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant served in the Regular Air Force in the grade of 
major (O-4) during the matter under review. 

 

On 22 Aug 12, the applicant participated in an FA, attaining a 
composite score of 62.10, which constituted an unsatisfactory 
assessment. 

 

On 24 Aug 12, the applicant received a LOR for failing his Air 
Force Physical Fitness reassessment. 


On 30 Aug 12, the applicant filed an Inspector General (IG) 
complaint in reference to his commander forcing him to take the 
FA prior to his full 90-day reconditioning period being 
complete. 

 

On 4 Sep 12, the applicant participated in another FA and 
attained a passing score. 

 

On 5 Sep 12, the applicant’s commander rescinded the 
aforementioned LOR and determined that the action would not be 
filed in the applicant’s officer selection record. 

 

On 10 Sep 12, the IG Office responded to the applicant’s 
complaint acknowledging their awareness that the commander 
rescinded the LOR and the unit commander had taken corrective 
action. As a result, they considered the applicant’s complaint 
to be closed. 

 

On 18 Sep 12, the applicant received an LOC for failing to 
schedule his fitness retest in a timely manner. In accordance 
with AFI 36-2905, Airmen are required to retest within 90 days 
following an Unsatisfactory FA in order to maintain currency. 
The applicant’s 90th day was 28 Aug 12, he did not retest until 
4 Sep 12. 

 

On 9 Oct 12, the applicant was ordered to be relieved from 
active duty on 31 May 13 and retired, effective 1 Jun 13. 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIM recommends granting the applicant’s request to remove 
the FA dated, 22 Aug 12 from the AFFMS, noting that Unit 
Commanders may not mandate Airmen to retest any sooner than the 
end of the 90-day reconditioning period; however, Airmen may 
volunteer to do so. As for the LOR, dated 24 Aug 12, it appears 
the commander has already agreed to rescind the LOR from his 
record. Notwithstanding the above, the applicant’s request to 
remove the LOC and UIF should be denied as the LOC was processed 
in accordance with AFI 36-2907. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant reiterates that the LOC is inappropriate, unfair, 
and constitutes reprisal. He argues that if he had not objected 
to taking his FA on 22 Aug 12, he would have remained current in 
the system and would not have received the LOC. His FA on 
22 Aug 12 was in effect until his commander invalidated the test 


on 5 Sep 12. He passed the test on 4 Sep 12. He points-out 
that the language in the LOC implies that either he “volunteer” 
to test on 22 Aug 12, or, face the consequences of being labeled 
“derelict” for failure to remain current. He received an LOC 
for “failing to remain current” in the fitness system but he was 
never non-current. 

 

A complete copy of the applicant’s response is at 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice with respect 
to the 22 Aug 12 FA, the LOC and the UIF. We took notice of the 
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the 
case and agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air 
Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale 
as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has been the 
victim of an error or injustice with respect to the 22 Aug 12 
FA. The applicant contends the basis for the LOC and the UIF, 
i.e., him becoming “non-current” in the fitness program, is 
invalid because circumstances outside his control caused him to 
be unable to schedule his FA before he became “noncurrent” on 
28 Aug 12. In this respect, we note the applicant would not 
have been untimely in scheduling his retest, had he not been 
forced to take the FA on 22 Aug 12, prior to his 90-day 
reconditioning period. Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s 
record be corrected as indicated below. 

 

4. The applicant alleges he is the victim of reprisal, 
indicating that the aforementioned LOC and UIF were issued in 
retaliation for making a protected communication to the 
Inspector General (IG) regarding his contested FA. However, 
while we found the evidence submitted sufficient to recommend 
removal of these actions from the applicant’s record, other than 
his own assertions, he has provided no direct evidence of this 
alleged reprisal motive. 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 UIF is not, in and of itself, sufficient to 
establish that these actions were motivated by reprisal. 
Therefore, after a thorough review of the evidence before us, we 
do not conclude the applicant has been the victim of reprisal. 
The applicant has not established the LOC and UIF were rendered 


in retaliation to making a protected communication. Therefore, 
it is our determination the applicant has not been the victim of 
reprisal based on the evidence of record in this case. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected as follows: 

 

 a. The Fitness Assessment (FA), dated 22 Aug 12, be 
declared void and removed from the Air Force Fitness Management 
System (AFFMS). 

 

 b. The letter of counseling (LOC), with Unfavorable 
Information File (UIF), dated 18 Sep 12, be declared void and 
removed from his records. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-04458 in Executive Session on 4 Jun 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 25 Sep 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Military Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 29 Oct 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Nov 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Dec 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair