RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01883 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. Her fitness assessments (FAs) dated 28 Jun 10 and 27 Aug 10, 
be removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). 

 

2. Her Referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for 
the period 1 Jul 09 through 28 Aug 10, be voided and removed from 
her permanent record. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

Her referral OPR was unjust as it was due to an undiagnosed 
medical condition. 

 

Due to the failure of the Military Treatment Facility (MTF), her 
medical providers did not initiate an AF Form 469, Duty Limiting 
Condition Report in a timely manner. This delay in medical care 
and the fact that she had minimal time to adjust to high altitude 
at Kirkland AFB after frequent temporary duties (TDYs) led to her 
FA failures. 

 

There was no AF Form 469 initiated during the period 3 Nov 09, to 
27 Oct 10. On 13 May 10, a chiropractor documented her pain was 
worse with running and push-ups, and she poorly tolerated PT 
activities. On 28 Oct 10, a provider initiated the first AF Form 
469 indicating “profile no push-ups for 3 months, push-ups causes 
tingling in arms.” 

 

On 18 Nov 09, an X-ray of her cervical spine was ordered and it 
took almost a year before she received the abnormal results. The 
11-month delay (18 Nov 09 to 28 Oct 10) it took to review and 
inform her of the abnormal results, a lack of communication, the 
ordering of follow-up tests, and a subsequent change in her 
treatment plan (muscular to nerve) constitutes a delay in medical 
care. 

 

The elevation at Kirkland AFB is 5,289 feet above sea level. She 
was TDY 12 times between Nov 09 and Nov 10, an average of 5 days 
for each TDY. She tested in Aug 10 just four days after 
returning to Kirkland AFB. On 3 Jan 12, the Air Force Guidance 
Memorandum (GM) for AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program; was published. 
While the elevation adjustment would not have been value added in 
assisting her to pass the Jun 09 FA, it provides written guidance 


to installations where high elevation negatively affects optimal 
cardiovascular endurance. The GM demonstrates a return to 
elevation adjustment for high elevation installations when 
Fitness Tests are administered. 

 

On 1 Nov 10, she received her first AF Form 469 related to the 
pain and numbness in her neck. On 17 Nov 10, she tested in three 
of four components and received a “Satisfactory” FA score. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, copies of her Referral OPR, Report of Individual 
Fitness Test History, a Summary Timeline, a letter of support 
from her rating chain, and medical documentation. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is presently serving on active duty in the grade of 
major. With the exception of the contested report, the OPRs 
included in the applicant’s record reflect overall ratings of 
“meets standards.” 

 

The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation 
Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. 

 

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from 
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters 
prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove 
her FAs dated 28 Jun 10, 27 Aug 10, and 17 Nov 10. DPSIM states 
the applicant’s FAs were conducted in accordance with AFI 36-
2905. In addition, the AF Form 422 that was provided by the 
applicant is dated Jun 12, and is not applicable to the timeframe 
of the FAs in question. 

 

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

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void 
her contested report. DPSID states, the applicant claims it was 
the MTF’s failure in not providing a timely medical profile, but 
she does not substantiate her claim by providing a statement from 
her Primary Care Manager (PCM) or from a competent medical 
authority which could have shed light as to why no medical 


decision was made to grant an AF Form 469 profile during the 
period in question. Without a statement, DPSID can only conclude 
competent medical authorities treating the applicant during that 
time made a valid decision to not issue an AF Form 469 profile to 
the applicant. The applicant made numerous visits to the MTF 
during this period; however, there was no evidence of any fitness 
component exemption as the result of a fitness profile, until 
17 Nov 10, as recorded in AFFMS. 

 

The applicant has the responsibility to pursue any needed 
profile(s) with her PCM during the time period. The applicant 
has not provided any evidence to show that any such attempts were 
made by her prior to, or during the timeframe of the failed FAs. 

 

The applicant has not provided valid evidence to support her 
claim that any of the fitness components she tested on were 
evaluated inappropriately due to elevation considerations. 

 

The AF Form 469 and AF Form 422 the applicant provided were 
outside the relevant rating period and are therefore not relevant 
to the applicant’s case to void the contested OPR, nor were they 
relevant to the FAs in question. Based on the lack of 
substantiating documentation provided, DPSID considers the 
referral fitness comment in Section IV and marking in Section IX 
to be valid and appropriate as recorded on the contested report, 
and in accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and 
procedures. 

 

The applicant had avenues to ensure that any medical issues were 
taken into consideration; not by the rating chain, but with the 
proper authorities within the medical community. Therefore, to 
change or void this evaluation would be an injustice to other 
Airmen which have consulted with the medical community and 
received the proper medical profiles regarding the fitness 
program or the other Airmen which have met the regulatory AF 
requirements. 

 

An evaluation report is considered to represent the rating 
chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. Once a report 
is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary 
warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record. The 
applicant has not substantiated 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 C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

She disagrees with DPSID’s opinion that there was no delay in 
medical treatment. During the 11-month period (18 Nov 09 – 
28 Oct 10), there was ample opportunity for multiple members of 


the MTC to review and tell her the abnormal results of her 18 Nov 
09 X-ray. 

 

Had she been told she had multi-level degenerative disc disease 
and neuroforaminal narrowing, she would certainly have requested 
a profile appropriate to her limitations. However, because these 
abnormal results were not communicated to her for almost a year, 
she dutifully continued to comply with the muscular plan of care 
treatments until her second FA failure, even with continuing 
symptoms. 

 

She contends that her former rater is a competent medical 
authority; he is the Aerospace Neurology Consultant to the Air 
Force Surgeon General. 

 

The applicant's complete response is at Exhibit E. 

 

The applicant also provides a memorandum of support from The 
Inspector General of the Air Force. 

 

The IG memorandum, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 

 

In view of the applicant’s rebuttal response and supporting 
statement from the Air Force IG, DPSIM was asked to provide an 
additional advisory opinion. 

 

DPSIM considered the IG’s memorandum and stated their 
recommendation to deny the request had not changed. DPSIM states 
they could not comment on the delay in providing appropriate 
medical documentation, i.e., the AF Form 422 and/or AF Form 469, 
as it is not within the purview of their office to comment on 
contributing factors involving medical treatment. 

 

The applicant’s FAs were conducted on the scheduled date that 
aligned with the annual requirement and re-assessment for a 
failed assessment. There were no discrepancies identified in the 
scheduling of the FAs. 

 

With the introduction of AFI 36-2905 in Jul 10, commanders were 
given some authority to exempt members from all or singular 
components of the FA. Based on the evidence provided, it is 
unclear if the commander engaged with the MTF to make such a 
determination. While the MTF allegedly was delayed in providing 
the necessary documentation, the commander had the authority to 
temporarily waive the member from testing. Unfortunately, this 
would have only affected the 27 Aug 10 FA. The Unit Fitness 
Program Manager (UFPM) and Fitness Assessment Cell (FAC) are 
required to test Airmen on all components unless exempted by the 
commander in consultation with medical authority. In the absence 
of such documents the UFPM/FAC will test all components; in 


short, the applicant was tested as required considering what was 
available to test administrators. 

 

The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit G. 

 

AFMSA/SG3O reviewed this application and concurs with DPSIM and 
DPSID that the applicant’s failed FA’s should not be removed from 
the AFFMS, and that her referral OPR should not be removed from 
her records. 

 

SG3O agrees the MTF could have better documented the applicant’s 
suitability for fitness-related activities and better 
communicated her X-ray results in 2009; however, they interpret 
her actions as a belated attempt to transfer responsibility for 
her failure to meet AF fitness standards. In fact, she made the 
following statement in a memo to AFIA/SG, dated 27 Oct 10, “I 
take full responsibility for my fitness failure.” 

 

The applicant sought treatment in Nov 09, for left arm and hand 
numbness. She was referred to physical therapy and chiropractor. 
A plain film showed very mild right multi-level neuroforminal 
narrowing worse on the right and degenerative changes in the 
cervical spine. The applicant indicated these results were not 
communicated with her until a year later. She states that the 
MTF failed to initiate an AF Form 469 in a timely manner, and 
that she was not placed on a FA exemption until Nov 10. SG3O 
interprets the X-ray findings as showing non-specific 
degenerative changes, and they would not mandate a FA exemption 
independent of clinical correlation. SG3O agrees that the 
standard of care should be to communicate X-ray and lab findings 
to the patient in a timely manner. From 2009 until her first FA 
failure on 28 Jun 10, the applicant visited primary care twice, 
on 3 Nov 09 and 18 Nov 09. Typically, FA exemptions are issued 
by the primary care provider, and physical therapists and 
chiropractors do not issue AF Forms 469. No FA exemption was 
issued during either primary care visit in Nov 09, and no 
documentation on suitability for fitness activities was made. 

 

There appears to have been no effort on the applicant’s part from 
Nov 09 – Jun 10 to communicate to the MTF that she was unable to 
train in, or perform all four components of the FA. Despite 
falling the FA, she did not seek medical care in the two months 
before her next FA on 27 Nov 10, based on the available medical 
documentation and her own timeline. Even after her second 
consecutive FA failure, she did not seek medical attention until 
14 Oct 10. Her argument that medical symptoms precluded her from 
passing the FA and the MTFs inadequately profiled her is 
questionable given her own delay in seeking medical care. 

 

The applicant states that she was finally issued an AF Form 
469 on 28 Oct 10, at which time a MRI of the cervical spine was 
ordered. This was performed by a civilian imaging center on 
2 Nov 10; it showed multi-level degeneration, uncovertebral 
hypertrophy (also consistent with degenerative changes), and 


foraminal narrowing at multiple levels. These findings require 
clinical correlation, and given her symptoms of persistent left 
arm pain and numbness, her AF Form 469 to exempt her from pushups 
was reasonable. 

 

The applicant further claims that her frequent TDYs outside of 
Kirkland AFB hindered her from optimally performing the FA, and 
references the AFGM5, to AFI 36-2905, published on 3 Jan 12. 
This explanation is unsatisfactory. She was TDY less than half 
the time between her two FA failures. More importantly, she 
cannot use a change in the Air Force fitness program policy to 
retroactively invalidate a score that existed under the old 
policy. In fact, had she used the altitude correction detailed 
in AFGM5, it would have resulted in a 5 second decrease in her 
run time of 18.46 on the second FA, her better run time of the 
two FA failures. The corrected time would not have influenced 
her score. In fact, under the current AFI policy, which 
incorporates minimum component values, she would have scored 
below the minimum and would have automatically failed the FA 
(maximum 1.5 mile run time allowed: 18:14). 

 

Regarding the letter of support from the Deputy Director of 
Medical Operations at the Air Force Inspection Agency (AFIA), 
during the contested period, he states, in his letter, “…more 
expedient clinical follow-up should have been accomplished, as 
this would be the accepted standard of medical care…if this 
additional medical follow-up and clinical information had been 
available earlier, Maj P. likely would have avoided the fitness 
testing failures that ultimately led to the referral OPR.” What 
is not explained is to what extent the responsibility for this 
clinical follow-up lies with the applicant. As discussed above, 
there were no primary care visits between 18 Nov 09 and 14 Oct 
10. SG3O concurs that the MTF did not appropriately communicate 
the X-ray results performed on 18 Nov 09, but there is no mention 
that the applicant attempted to find the results. In Air Force 
MTFs, patients can always telephone the provider or clinical 
nurse, which becomes part of the medical record as a “telephone 
consultation.” No telephone consultations appear to have been 
sought at anytime between 18 Nov 09 and 14 Oct 10. 

 

SAF/IG disputes AFPC’s determination that there was no delay in 
medical treatment, and cites the ample opportunities for multiple 
members of the Kirkland MTF to review and inform her of the 
abnormal results of the 18 Nov 09 X-ray. Implicit in this 
comment is that somehow the X-ray would have automatically driven 
a FA exemption. As noted above, the X-ray finding was non-
specific and would have required clinical correlation for 
appropriate disposition. The fact she had multiple visits to PT 
and a chiropractor does not necessarily imply a missed 
opportunity to issue an AF Form 469, as duty limiting conditions 
are normally under the purview of the primary care provider. 

 

SAF/IG also states that “Because these abnormal X-ray results 
were not communicated to her until Oct 10, almost a year later, 


she dutifully continued to comply with the muscular plan of care 
treatments that resulted in an Air Force FA failure for pushups, 
even with continuing symptoms.” In fact, the applicant achieved 
a perfect score of 10/10 points on the 28 Jun 10 FA; her failure 
primarily resulted from her very poor run score. She 
subsequently failed the 27 Aug 10 FA when she was only credited 
with 2 pushups (0/10 points); this FA was administered by the new 
FAC. But it was not just the pushups that caused her to fail. 
During this FA, AFI 36-2905 was operational. She had a run time 
of 18.46 (42/60 points), 11 sit-ups (1.2/10 points), and 33.0” 
abdominal circumference (16.5/20 points). The SAF/IG memo does 
not consider the responsibility of the applicant for the delay in 
issuing the AF Form 469. 

 

The complete SG3O evaluation is at Exhibit H. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 

 

On 14 Feb 13, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, 
a response has not been received (Exhibit I). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was timely filed. 

 

3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting 
corrective action. After careful consideration of the 
applicant’s complete submission the majority of the Board finds 
it to be in the interest of justice to grant relief. The 
majority of the Board notes the recommendations of the Air Force 
offices of primary responsibility to deny the requested relief. 
However, their recommendations appear to be based primarily on 
the fact the actions taken against the applicant were properly 
executed in accordance with governing policy. Nevertheless, this 
Board may base its decisions on matters of equity and justice, 
rather than simply on whether rules and regulations were 
followed. The majority of the Board finds it unconscionable that 
despite admitting the failures in the medical standard of care, 
AFMSA/SG3O would reach the conclusion that the applicant should 
have taken responsibility to find out the results of her medical 
tests. The majority of the Board notes that, as her commander (a 
competent medical authority and a PCM) said, had the results been 
communicated to the applicant immediately, it likely would have 
led to duty limitation recommendations, and would have prevented 


her FA failures. In this respect, the Board majority notes the 
delayed medical diagnosis and treatment was likely the cause of 
her FA failures and in the interest of justice believes her FAs 
dated 28 Jun 10 and 27 Aug 10 should be removed from her records. 
Moreover, since her referral OPR was based on the unsatisfactory 
FAs, the majority of the Board also believe it should also be 
removed. In view of the above, the majority of the Board 
recommends that her records be corrected as indicated below. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that: 

 

 a. Her fitness assessments dated 28 Jun 10 and 27 Aug 10 be 
declared void and removed from the Air Force Fitness Management 
System. 

 

 b. The AF Form 707, Officer Performance Report (Lt thru 
Col) rendered for the period of 1 Jul 09 through 28 Aug 10, be 
declared void and removed from her records 

 

It is further recommended that she be provided promotion 
consideration to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special 
Selection Board for any board(s) in which the above referenced 
OPR was a matter of record. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-01883 in Executive Session on 5 Feb 13 and 12 Apr 
13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

, Panel Chair 

, Member 

, Member 


 

By a majority vote, the Board recommended approval of the 
application. Members of the board voted to deny the applicant’s 
request and elected not to submit a minority report. The 
following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-
2012-01883 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 May 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 16 Jul 12, w/atch. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 7 Aug 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Aug 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Sep 12. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/IG, dated 27 Sep 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 29 Jan 13. 

 Exhibit H. Letter, AFMSA/SG3O, undated. 

 Exhibit I. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 14 Feb 13. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair