Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04950
Original file (BC-2012-04950.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-04950
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: NO

	 

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Fitness Assessments dated 29 Jun 12 and 27 Sep 12 be removed 
from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS).

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He had a medical condition that precluded him from achieving a 
passing score.  

In support of his appeal, applicant submits email 
communicaitons, excerpts from his medical records, and a copy of 
a letter from AFPC/DPSIM.

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 technical sergeant.

The applicant’s last five FA scores are as follows:

	DATE	RESULT

	27 Jun 11	UNSATISFACTORY
	 1 Sep 11	SATISFACTORY
	28 Mar 12	UNSATISFACTORY
*	29 Jun 12	UNSATISFACTORY
*	27 Sep 12	UNSATISFACTORY

* 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.  On 1 Oct 12, the applicant’s 
commander requested a Fitness Failure Medical Evaluation in 
which the medical provider responded indicating the applicant 
did have a medical condition that precluded him from achieving a 
passing score.  The applicant did seek a medical evaluation; 
however, he did not provide evidence his commander invalidated 
either test.  Furthermore, additional documentation was 
requested, but none was received.  DPSIM notes that although the 
applicant provides his AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition 
Report, it is marked as a working copy and has not been 
validated.

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 24 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-2012-04950 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 22 Oct 12, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 2 Feb 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Feb 13.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair





 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00540

    Original file (BC-2013-00540.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00540 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Fitness Assessment (FA) scores, dated 16 Jun 10, 23 Sep 10, 17 Dec 10, 25 Mar 11, 3 Jul 12, and 1 Oct 12, be removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). The applicant completed 36 sit-ups; however, the passing minimum score for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04441

    Original file (BC 2013 04441.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 20 Feb 14, a similar request was considered and denied by the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB), stating “there was not enough or specific details of the medical condition provided from the applicant’s medical provider.” A list of the applicant’s last 10 FAs is as follows: Date Composite Score Sit-Ups Rating 5 Feb 14 82.00 Exempt Satisfactory 19 Jun 13 79.00 Exempt Satisfactory 25 Feb 13 85.00 Exempt Satisfactory *27 Dec 12 23.50 39/0.00 Unsatisfactory 25 Jun...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02030

    Original file (BC 2014 02030.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In accordance with AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, when an Airman receives four Unsatisfactory FA scores within a 24-month period and a medical records review by a military health care provider has ruled out medical conditions precluding the Airman from achieving a passing score, the Unit Commander must make a discharge or retention recommendation to the separation authority. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04987

    Original file (BC 2013 04987.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    and paragraph 4.2.2.2 "The provider will specify the length of time required for physical limitations.” A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04714

    Original file (BC 2013 04714.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He also provided a memorandum from the medical provider dated 01 Jul 13, that validated he had a medical condition that precluded him from passing the 19 Jun 13 FA and then was issued an AF Form 469. In regards to the FA dated 19 Jun 13, we recognize the letter from his medical provider, which states that a medical condition prevented him from passing. Furthermore, the applicant contends that since the FAs dated 31 July 12 and 28 Dec 12 now reflect a passing score in AFFMS and the FAs...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03249

    Original file (BC 2013 03249.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The FAAB removed the duplicate FA, dated 21 Jan 07 from the AFFMS but found insufficient evidence to warrant removal of the FAs, dated 15 Jul 12 and 10 Feb 13, and denied this portion of the request. The applicant’s last nine FA results are as follows: Date Days Since Last Test Composite Score Rating 9 Feb 14 62 46.90 Unsatisfactory 8 Dec 13 146 72.80 Unsatisfactory 14 Jul 13 69 7.50 Unsatisfactory 5 May 13 83 67.90 Unsatisfactory *10 Feb 13 27 46.90 Unsatisfactory 13 Jan...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00219

    Original file (BC-2013-00219.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his request, the applicant provides a letter from his medical provider. 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Oct 2013.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05000

    Original file (BC 2012 05000.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    DPSIM further recommends the fitness assessments dated 27 Sep 11, 30 Dec 11, and 28 Mar 12 be corrected to reflect the applicant was exempt from the waist measurement component of these FAs. The complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He was told he had to participate in the abdominal circumference for the 29 Mar 11 FA, not knowing there was an AF Form 422...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03078

    Original file (BC 2013 03078.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    A list of the applicant’s last five FA results is as follows: Date Composite Score Cardio Rating 19 Aug 13 88.75 Exempt Satisfactory 13 May 13 35.60 15:45/0.00 Exempt 8 Nov 12 92.00 Exempt Excellent 14 Aug 12 28.80 18:01/0.00 Unsatisfactory 16 Feb 12 91.75 Exempt Excellent *26 Nov 11 42.30 16:49/8.30 Unsatisfactory *26 Jul 11 35.70 18:52/0.00 Unsatisfactory 31 Jan 11 84.00 Exempt Satisfactory 25 Nov 10 27.50 Incomplete/0.00 Unsatisfactory 24 May 10 78.00 13:11/36.00 Good *Contested FA On 14...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01787

    Original file (BC 2013 01787.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The medical documents mentioned above validates the applicant had a medical condition that precluded him from achieving a passing score on the contested FA. DPSIM indicates he has not provided documentation from his medical provider stating his medical condition would prevent him from achieving a passing score on the contested FA. In this respect, the applicant failed to provide a letter from his medical provider stating how his medical condition prevented him from passing the AC component...