RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04719 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His 18 May 11 Fitness Assessment (FA) be declared void and 
removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). 

 

2. His referral AF Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), 
rendered for the period 2 Jun 10 through 1 Jun 11 be declared 
void and removed from his records. 

 

3. His records be provided supplemental consideration for 
promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8). 

 

4. His EPR rendered for the period 2 Jun 11 through 1 Jun 12 be 
reconsidered for senior rater endorsement. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was unjustly required to take the abdominal portion the 
18 May 11 FA even though his doctor recommended against it. If 
doctor’s recommendations and commander’s support could have 
decided this matter, he would not be in this situation. 

 

1. His doctor’s recommendation for the applicant to receive an 
exemption from the AC portion of the FA was unjustly denied 
because of a local Medical Group Commander’s policy letter, 
implemented in Nov 10, which made medical exemptions for FA’s 
much more stringent. At the time of the FA, he suffered from 
multiple serious medical conditions which warranted exemption 
from the full FA; however, he was required to take the AC 
portion. His doctor, supervisor, and commander all support this 
contention. He suffered from an irregular heartbeat, severe 
lower back issues requiring hospitalization, a dislocated 
shoulder with a 75 percent torn labrum, migraine headaches, and 
was undergoing an MEB due to his medical conditions. For the 
migraine headaches he was on the prescription medication 
Depakote which is known to cause weight gain, and caused him to 
gain 18 pounds. 

 


2. His referral “4” EPR was also unjust. In this instance, 
AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, requires a 
referral EPR, but the AFI is inadequate because it has no 
provision allowing special consideration for members with 
serious medical issues who are going through MEB action. 
Because of the FA failure, and the ensuing referral EPR, he was 
ineligible for promotion consideration during the 2011 Senior 
Master Sergeant promotion board. Further, because of the 
referral EPR in 2011, his 2012 EPR was not considered for senior 
rater endorsement. 

 

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 
Master Sergeant (E-7) during the period of time in question. 

 

On 14 Apr 10, the applicant was issued a AF Form 469, Duty 
Limiting Condition Report, citing the following restrictions: 
no running greater than 100 yards; no lifting, pushing, or 
pulling greater than 40 pounds; no repetitive bending at the 
waist; no walking greater than ½ mile; and, no AC measurement. 

 

On 22 Nov 10, the applicant’s Wing Medical Group issued a 
memorandum, Clarification of AC Exemption Recommendation for FA, 
establishing the Exercise Physiologist working with the Senior 
Profile Officer as the only authorities who could recommend to 
commanders medical exemptions from components of an FA for a 
member with Duty Limiting Conditions, and stating “AC changes 
due to weight gain from medications or lack of exercise should 
not get AC exemptions.” 

 

On 29 Nov 10, the applicant received an e-mail from the Wing 
Medical Squadron notifying him that his physician’s 
recommendation for the applicant to be exempt from the AC 
portion of the FA had been denied by the Senior Profile Officer. 

 

On 18 May 11, the applicant took the FA while exempt from all 
portions except the AC component and received a score of 
unsatisfactory. 

 

On 22 Aug 11, the applicant was issued an updated AF Form 469 
indicating he was certified to return to duty as of 31 Oct 11 
and removing restrictions imposed by MEB/PEB processing. His 
remaining restrictions were: no running greater than 100 yards; 
no lifting, pushing, or pulling greater than 40 pounds; and, no 
repetitive bending at the waist. 

 

 


The applicant’s last several FA results are as follows: 

 

Date 

Composite Score 

Rating 

28 Sep 12 

87.63 

Satisfactory* 

29 Mar 12 

85.13 

Satisfactory* 

16 Sep 11 

75.88 

Satisfactory* 

18 May 11 

41.00 

Unsatisfactory** 

9 Nov 10 

Exempt 

Exempt 

27 May 09 

79.88 

Good 



* Exempt from sit-ups and push-up. 

**Took AC portion only. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of 
primary responsibility (OPR) which are included at Exhibits C 
and D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice. The applicant claims he should have been 
exempt from all components of the FA in question, to include the 
AC measurement. The applicant provided an AF Form 469, Duty 
Limiting Condition Report, dated 14 Apr 10, exempting him from 
running greater than 100 yards, heavy lifting, pushing, pulling, 
carrying over 40 pounds, repetitive bending at the waist, 
walking greater than half a mile, and participating in the AC 
portion of the FA. In Nov 10, the applicant received an e-mail 
from his Wing Medical Group indicating his exemption for the AC 
portion of the FA was removed. On 18 May 11, the applicant 
completed his FA with exemptions in the cardio, push-up, and 
sit-up portions, but scored “unsatisfactory” on the AC portion. 
Soon thereafter, the applicant’s records were forwarded to an 
MEB for review. The final MEB summary, dated 11 Oct 11, 
indicated he would continue to be exempt from push-ups, sit-ups, 
and cardio portions of the FA. AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, 
paragraph 2.10.4, states “AC will be performed on all members, 
unless exempted by medical provider IAW paragraph 4.2 since 
there is no risk to the member.” This excerpt validates the 
Wing Medical Group policy regarding not exempting member from 
the AC portion of the FA. In essence, there is no evidence to 
indicate the applicant should have been exempt from the AC. 

 

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

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice with respect to the contested EPR. The 
applicant asserts his contested referral “4” EPR was unjust 
based on pre-existing medical conditions which were not 
considered for exemption by the AFI. The applicant provided 


documentation from competent medical authority to demonstrate 
several medical and orthopedic issues limited his activities and 
resulted in weight gain and an increase in his abdominal 
circumference, causing the applicant to fail his FA. However, 
other competent medical authorities, to include the MEB, clearly 
stated the underlying medical conditions were not significant 
enough to warrant an exemption to the AC portion of the FA. 
While the applicant’s commander and supervisor provided 
statements claiming that they did not believe the applicant 
should have been allowed to perform the FA, the medical 
community is ultimately responsible for determining when members 
should be exempt from components of the FA. In this case, 
healthy eating and nutritional consult could have educated the 
applicant in tailoring a program to prevent weight gain. 
AFPC/DPSIM provided an advisory in which they recommended the FA 
result not be removed from the AFFMS. Based on AFPC/DPSIM’s 
recommendation, the referral fitness comments as well as the 
“Does Not Meet” marking in Section III, Block 3 of the referral 
EPR are valid and in accordance with applicable policies and 
regulations. AFI 36-2905, effective 1 Jul 10, states “It is 
every Airman’s responsibility to maintain the standards set 
forth in this AFI 365 days a year.” Having a waist measurement 
of 41 inches at the time of an FA is by definition not 
physically fit nor a recipe for success for passing the FA. 

 

Concerning the applicant’s request for reconsideration in 
obtaining eligibility for Senior Rater endorsement on his 
2012 EPR, AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted 
Evaluation Reports, states “the (appeals) board will not 
consider nor approve requests to change an evaluator’s ratings 
or comments if the evaluator does not support the change. When 
an evaluator supports changing ratings, all subsequent 
evaluators must also agree to the changes.” Senior raters are 
given full discretion when determining which reports to endorse. 
The applicant has not substantiated the contested report was not 
rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge 
available at the time. Although the AFBCMR is not governed by 
AFI 36-2401, recommend the AFBCMR follow the guidance set for an 
appeal and deny the applicant’s request. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 5 Jul 13 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 an 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 (OPRs) and adopt their rationale as the basis for 
our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
of injustice. While the Board notes the applicant had the 
support of his physician, supervisor, and commander, the Wing 
Medical Group clearly had the authority to establish policies 
and procedures for exempting members from taking portions of 
their FA based upon medical conditions. Therefore, we are not 
convinced the Medical Group Senior Profile Officer’s denial of 
the applicant’s request for exemption from the AC portion, and 
the ensuing FA failure and follow-on personnel actions, 
represent errors or injustices. As for the applicant’s request 
pertaining to his senior rater endorsement, other than his own 
assertions, he has presented no evidence that would lead us to 
believe that his senior rater was determined as the result of an 
error or injustice or that his command abused their 
discretionary authority in making said determination. 
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 
no basis to recommend granting the relief. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2012-04719 in Executive Session on 8 Aug 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-04719 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Oct 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 13 Feb 13, w/atch. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 11 Jun 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Jul 13. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair