RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04571
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Fitness Assessment dated 20 Sep 12 [sic] be removed from the
Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS).
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was measured two times at the Fitness Assessment Cell (FAC)
during the FA in question. The measurements were 44 and 40.5;
however, when he returned to his unit they measured him and his
measurement was 38.5. His commander provides a letter of
support.
His 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 senior airman.
The applicants last five FA scores are as follows:
DATE RESULT
31 Jan 12 SATISFACTORY
1 Apr 12 EXEMPT
17 Jul 12 UNSATISFACTORY
* 25 Sep 12 UNSATISFACTORY
23 Oct 12 SATISFACTORY
* Contested FA test.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of
the Air Force, which is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
_
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial. The applicant is contesting a FA
test dated 20 Sep 12; however, there is no FA test result with
that date listed in AFFMS. There is an FA test result in the
AFMMS dated 25 Sep 12 that the applicant completed only the AC
measurement and was recorded as incomplete for all other
components. According to the governing instructions, the FAC is
the official body that certifies the FA tests. In this case,
there is no evidence that indicates they violated the
instructions when the test was administered. Although there was
a disparity in measuring the applicants AC component of the FA
test, the disparity in itself does not invalidate the
measurements taken by the FAC; as a matter of fact, it appears
they gave the applicant the benefit of the doubt and entered the
lower AC measurement in the AFFMS.
The commander decided to invalidate the FA result based on the
alleged incorrect administration of the AC component.
Unfortunately, the governing instruction does not authorize
invalidation on this premise. The commander may invalidate a
test result only when an illness/injury is validated by a
medical evaluation. Further, there is no explanation as to why
the applicant did not complete any other component of the FA in
question.
The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 17 Feb 13 for review and comment within 30 days.
As of this date, this office has received no response.
________________________________________________________________
_
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 opinion and recommendation
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has
not been the victim of an error or injustice. 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 that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and
that 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-2012-04571 in Executive Session on 18 Jun 13, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Sep 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 7 Feb 13.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Feb 13.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05629
She was re-measured a week later by a different FAC member [witnessed by the Unit Fitness Program Manager (UFPM)], and her measurements were, height (66 inches) and waist (30.5 inches). DPSIM states that the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that would indicate the 5 Sep 12 AC measurement did not comply with the Air Force Instruction. The complete DPSIM evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02277
On 24 Apr 13, the applicant participated in the contested FA and attained a composite score of 64.40 unsatisfactory due to failure to achieve minimum requirements on the AC. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit B ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In response to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant submitted; a memorandum from the FAC validating that she in fact asked for a re-tape by another...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03388
After completing his FA, he requested his Unit Fitness Program Manager (UFPM) -re- accomplish an AC measurement. The tester will record this value as the AC measurement. The applicant did not provide his fitness score sheet nor did he provide documentation from the FAC acknowledging the error and an invalidation memorandum from the Unit Commander indicating his/her decision to invalidate the FA. While we note the applicant's stated request to have the entire FA removed, we believe the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 04155
Therefore, they recommend the AC component of the FA dated 31 Jul 2012, be updated to reflect "exempt" in AFFMS. The complete DPSIM evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The facts support his assertion that the entire FA should be removed from his record and that he should be granted the opportunity to re-test immediately. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-04155
Therefore, they recommend the AC component of the FA dated 31 Jul 2012, be updated to reflect "exempt" in AFFMS. The complete DPSIM evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The facts support his assertion that the entire FA should be removed from his record and that he should be granted the opportunity to re-test immediately. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02592
from the Unit CC; and Atch 1, Para 13 If the medical evaluation validates the illness/injury, the Unit Commander may invalidate the test results. The applicants last 5 FA results are as follows: Date Composite Score AC Measurement Rating 2 Aug 2013 82.20 38.00 Satisfactory 15 May 2013 16.50 39.50 Unsatisfactory 6 Nov 2012 83.30 38.50 Satisfactory *24 Oct 2012 0.00 40.00 Unsatisfactory 30 Jul 2012 74.10 39.00 Unsatisfactory *Annotates Contested FA: On 7 Jan 14, a similar request was...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02245
Other testers have been improperly measured at the same location. The tester will ensure tape is parallel to the floor at the level of the landmark (bottom edge of the tape just contacts landmark), is snug, but does not compress the bare skin. While the applicant has provided personal statements, a letter from her unit PTL, and an eyewitness statement from another Airman indicating that the AC measurement component of the contested FA may have been administered incorrectly, she has not met...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03538
On 15 Feb 13, he was given a AF Form 422, Notification of Air Force Qualification Status, which incorrectly authorized him to complete push-ups and sit-ups during FA testing, resulting in failure of his 28 Feb 13 FA because he only completed 10 push-ups. The applicant did not provide the Army version of the profile that was given to him, nor did he provide the original profile that should have been dated and signed by the Medical Provider on or about 15 Feb 13. While the Board notes the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05596
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05596 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Fitness Assessments (FA), dated 11 Jun 12 and 6 Sep 12, be removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). While we note the applicants stated request to have the entire FA removed, the Air Force office of primary responsibility has...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04682
The applicants last 5 FA results are as follows: Date Composite Score Cardio Rating 30 Oct 13 82.75 Exempt Satisfactory 28 Aug 13 32.60 32/0.00(1-mile walk) Unsatisfactory *13 Aug 13 71.75 Exempt Unsatisfactory 13 Feb 13 87.00 Exempt Satisfactory 7 Aug 12 80.20 15:52/44.10 Satisfactory * Contested FA A similar request was denied by the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB) on 14 Feb 14 on the basis of no letter from the commander to invalidate the Fitness Assessment. Also, no AF Form...