RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-05497
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: NO

	 

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the 
period of 7 Jul 10 through 6 Jul 11 be removed from his records 
and any other negative documents be removed.  

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1. There were extenuating circumstances in his case with regard 
to administrative support; he was geographically separated from 
his unit; there was no active fitness program, along with a 
number of other communication barriers and technical issues, 
which led to him being unaware of changes to the fitness testing 
schedule, per the governing instructions.  

2. As indicated in his records, he was “fit to fight” during the 
evaluation period.  When he tried to find out why he was not 
informed of the fitness program policy changes, he discovered 
that he was not included on Office of Contracts Military, or NRO 
Air Force/Military email distribution lists.  Because of this 
omission, he was never included or invited via email to listen 
in on any military functions such as Commander’s Call, etc., 
where notification and implementation of Air Force policy 
changes are commonly announced and emphasized, nor did he 
receive notifications on any Air Force related matters such as 
practices, policy changes, procedures, news or information 
during this period.  Additionally, because there was no fitness 
program at his duty location he was unable to hear about or 
understand how changes to the fitness instruction affected his 
testing cycle.  Had he had access or been informed about the 
changes, he would have scheduled and completed his fitness test 
within the appropriate timeframe.  

3. He submits an email that substantiates that he did not 
receive information regarding fitness assessments and referral 
evaluations because he was not on the email addressee list.

4. After a year of debate and exhausting all avenues in seeking 
exoneration, the OPR in question was added to his permanent file 
in July of this year.  

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of a 
personal memorandum, his OPR, his rebuttal to the referral OPR, 
his Individual Fitness Assessment History, email communications, 
a letter of support, and excerpts from his personnel records.

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 major  

The following is a resume of the applicant’s last seven EPRs:

	OPR CLOSEOUT DATE	PERFORMANCE FOCTORS
			
*	6 Jul 11	DOES NOT MEET STANDARDS
	6 Jul 10	MEETS STANDARDS
  10 Feb 10	MEETS STANDARDS
  10 Feb 09	MEETS STANDARDS
  10 Feb 08	MEETS STANDARDS

*Contested Report

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force, which is at Exhibit C and D.

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIM does not make a recommendation regarding the removal 
of the applicant’s OPR; however, they recommend his non-
compliance FA status be retained in his records. he referral OPR 
was generated for non-currency of his FA; therefore, the 
applicant is indirectly asking for review of his status at the 
time his OPR closed out.  The applicant contends that part of 
the reason for his non-currency was that he was not aware of 
policy changes.  It is unclear as to what changes the applicant 
is referring to.  Per the governing instructions, “Frequency of 
fitness testing should be based on the previous fitness score 
unless earlier assessment is necessary to accommodate the AEF 
rotation and maximize time available for intervention/fitness 
improvement.” 

Airmen have to be tested at least one time in a given year; more 
if they are not in the excellent category.  The applicant’s last 
FA test was dated 30 Jun 10, indicating he would have to retest 
no later than 30 Dec 10.  However, the evidence indicates there 
was no test accomplished in December 2010; this is when the 
applicant officially went noncurrent in the fitness program.   
Even if he did not know his test was due in December, he had 
until June 2011 to test and would have updated his FA currency.  
Further, they note that there were no changes in policy that 
would have impacted a minimum of one FA test annually.

The complete DPSIM evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial.  If the applicant had researched 
the current fitness policy, he would have been aware of the new 
policy changes and tested in a timely manner; the requirement to 
test annually has been in place since 2007.  Neither he nor his 
rating chain would have been in the position of having to 
process the report as a referral OPR on the basis of fitness 
non-currency.  They believe the main cause of the referral was 
not due to being assigned to an isolated location, but rather 
the applicant’s lack of awareness or ignorance of the policy 
changes which caused him to be noncurrent on his fitness as of 
the closeout of OPR in question.  

Although the applicant may feel this is an injustice, there were 
avenues that he could have pursued during the rating period to 
ensure that he was fully informed of new fitness policy changes 
and remained current on issues directly affecting his career, 
such as fitness, promotions, developmental education, etc.  
Therefore, to change or void this evaluation would be an 
injustice to other airman who were also at isolated locations 
and remained abreast of new Air Force policy changes and 
requirements, and acted accordingly.  The applicant has not 
substantiated that the contested report was not rendered in good 
faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the 
time.

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 21 Jun 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 warranting the 
removal of his OPR from his records.  After a thorough review of 
the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not 
persuaded that his uncorroborated assertions, in and by 
themselves, are sufficiently persuasive to override the 
rationale provided by AFPC/DPSID.  Moreover, the comments of 
AFPC/DPSIM concerning the validity of the applicant’s FA non-
compliance status are supported by the evidence of record.  
Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the 
Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the 
rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the 
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of the 
existence 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-2012-05497 in Executive Session on 22 Aug 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Nov 12, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 25 Feb 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 21 May 13.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 13.




                                   
                                   Chair