RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04842 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His narrative reason for separation be changed from “physical 
standards” to reflect he was granted a disability retirement. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. His FA failures were the result of a right ankle injury he 
sustained while deployed to Afghanistan in 2004. Also, he began 
experiencing post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) during his 
deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, and his symptoms continue 
to this day. 

 

2. He was diagnosed by doctors to be processed through the 
medical evaluation board (MEB) due to the persistent problem 
with his ankle injury and PTSD and placed on code 37 
(administrative hold while undergoing medical review). 

 

3. He was refused eligibility for the rollback program because 
he was listed as code 37 and only his commander and base medical 
could have him removed. 

 

4. His only option, without the code 37 removal, would be a 
hardship discharge and/or a discharge for FA failures. Although 
listed as Code 37 under medical review standards, his commander 
pushed for an administrative separation due to four FA failures 
to expedite his discharge process. 

 

5. He was told that he needed twelve consecutive months before 
being able to determine if he met standards for a MEB. 
Therefore, his medical separation physical did not reference his 
right ankle injury or diagnosed PTSD. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 


STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 June 2002. 

 

On 10 September 2010, the applicant received a Referral Enlisted 
Performance Report (EPR) for failure to meet job performance 
standards. Specifically, he received an unqualified rating with 
eight deviations. As a result, the applicant was decertified as 
a Missile Alert Facility Manager and removed from the alternate 
unit emergency management position because the program failed to 
meet minimum standards. 

 

On 16 September 2010, the applicant received non-judicial 
punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ) for dereliction in the performance of 
his duties on 23 August 2010, as facility manager, as evidenced 
by the Unit Emergency Management inspection failure. 

 

On 17 September 2010, the applicant participated in a FA where 
he was exempt from the cardio component. He was cleared to be 
tested on his height, weight, and abdominal circumference, push-
up and sit-up components. He received a composite score of 
69.75, which constituted an unsatisfactory assessment. 

 

On 16 December 2010, the applicant participated in a FA where he 
was exempt from the cardio and strength components of the FA; he 
was cleared to be tested on his height, weight, and abdominal 
circumference components. He failed the waist measurement only 
FA, which constituted an unsatisfactory assessment. 

 

On 16 March 2011, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand 
for failing the Air Force fitness standards for the third time. 
Although he was on a profile exempting him from the cardio and 
strength components of the FA, the applicant was cleared to be 
tested on his height, weight, and abdominal circumference 
components. He failed the waist measurement only FA, which 
constituted an unsatisfactory assessment. 

 

On 26 March 2011, the applicant received a referral EPR for 
failure to meet and maintain minimum job performance standards 
and receiving NJP. 

 

On 4 April 2011, the applicant requested permission to re-take 
his FA with the understanding that he had 42 days following the 
16 March 2011 FA failure to correct any deficiencies. He 
indicated that he will not meet fitness standards and had no 
desire to show progress. He further requested the opportunity 
to retest and expedite his separation from the Air Force to 
allow a swift transition to civilian status and move on with his 
life. 

 

On 4 April 2011, the applicant participated in a FA where he was 
exempt from the cardio and strength components of the FA; he was 
cleared to be tested on his height, weight, and abdominal 


circumference components. He failed the waist measurement only 
FA, which constituted an unsatisfactory assessment 

 

On 28 April 2011, the applicant’s commander notified him that he 
was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for failure to 
meet minimum fitness standards. Specifically, the applicant 
failed the Air force fitness test four times within a 24-month 
period. 

 

On 3 May 2011, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action, 
waived his rights to consult with legal counsel, to submit 
statements in his own behalf, or have his case heard by an 
administrative discharge board (ADB). 

 

On 5 May 2011, the case was found legally sufficient and the 
discharge authority directed the applicant be furnished an 
honorable discharge, without probation and rehabilitation. 

 

On 19 May 2011, the applicant was furnished an honorable 
discharge, with a narrative reason for separation of “Physical 
Standards.” He was credited with 8 years, 11 months, and 9 days 
of total active service. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letters prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility and the AFBCMR Medical Consultant which 
are attached at Exhibits C and D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice. The applicant’s discharge was consistent 
with the procedural and substantive requirements of the 
discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge 
authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative 
due process. 

 

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

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s 
request for a disability retirement. His mental health records, 
as well as his medical records, did not indicate conditions 
which met the criteria for or warranted a MEB. Additionally, 
there were no documented episodic complaints that interfered 
with the applicant’s military service to the extent or sustained 
duration that warranted a MEB or processing through the military 
Disability Evaluation System (DES) for a medical separation or 
retirement. The DES was established to maintain a fit and vital 
fighting force. By law, the DES can only offer compensation for 
those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically 
render a member unfit for continued active service and were the 
cause for career termination. Service members are considered 


unfit when the evidence establishes that a member, due to 
physical disability, is unable to reasonably perform the duties 
of his or her office, grade, and rank. The applicant reasonably 
performed his duties. In accordance with Air Force Instruction 
36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, airmen who fail to 
meet standards of fitness not amounting to disability may be 
discharged. The case file does not contain medical evidence 
which shows an effect or causal relationship with the 
termination of the applicant’s service or as an alternative 
reason for his release from military service. In this case, the 
applicant failed to make satisfactory progress in the Air Force 
fitness program and there is no medical condition that 
established [or should have] a cause and effect relationship 
with the termination of the applicant’s service. As such, his 
discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive 
requirements for the existing discharge regulation. 

 

The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) operates under Title 38 
and is authorized to provide continuing medical care and 
assistance to all eligible veterans. The DVA is empowered to 
periodically re-evaluate veterans for the purpose of adjusting 
the disability rating should the applicant’s degree of 
impairment vary over time. Therefore, the applicant is 
encouraged to utilize the resources of the DVA to the extent 
that he may be entitled. 

 

A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is 
at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant reiterates his argument that he was medically 
incapable of passing his physical fitness assessment. He 
believes that the Air Force has failed to recognize that he 
should have been discharged for medical reasons instead of 
failure to meet physical training standards. 

 

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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission, including his 


rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case; however, 
we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force 
office of primary responsibility and AFBCMR Medical Consultant 
and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 
While the applicant contends that his medical condition was the 
cause of his inability to attain a passing score on his Fitness 
Assessments, he has presented no evidence to indicate that his 
physical limitations were not appropriately considered by the 
medical authorities in determining which components of the 
contested FAs were administered. 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-2012-04842 in Executive Session on 30 July 2013, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 September 2011, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 10 January 2013. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 11 April 

 2013. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 19 April 2013. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 19 May 2013. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair