RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05107
COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Fitness Assessment (FA), dated 21 Sep 2012, be removed from
the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS).
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His FA should be removed due to equipment malfunction. During
the walk component of his FA the heart monitor sounded which
caused his heart rate to elevate. This should not have happened
and he was not briefed on it. Immediately after completing the
walk, he notified the Fitness Assessment Cell (FAC) staff, and
the FAC stated that this occurrence is normal.
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his
Individual Fitness Assessment History and Fitness Scorecard.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained
in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air
Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in
this Record of Proceedings.
________________________________________________________________
THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial. DPSIM states that the applicant
took his FA on 21 Sep 2012, achieving a composite score of
47.50 (unsatisfactory). During the 1.0 mile walk component, his
heart monitor sounded an alarm. When the heart monitor records
160 beats per minutes (BPM) or more, it will sound an alarm.
The applicant did not pass the walk component or any of the
other FA components except the abdominal circumference. He did
not provide any documentation exempting him from the
aforementioned components or why he performed the 1.0 mile walk
instead of the 1.5 mile run.
In accordance with AFI 36-2905, AF Fitness Program, AFGM 4,
paragraph A15.3, Administering the 1.0-mile walk assessment,
personnel are required to walk 1.0 mile as quickly as possible.
The participants heart rate is recorded immediately upon the
completion of the mile walk by reading the value from the heart
rate monitor. The applicant did not provide any evidence his
1.0 mile walk was improperly administered during the FA.
The complete DPSIM evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
He has sought medical attention since the FA in question and
discovered that he had underlying medical issues that exempted
him from the cardio and sit-up components of the FA. The 21 Sep
2012 FA was the first time he failed his FA. He further asserts
that the walk component assessment should be analyzed because if
he was 40 years of age and the same score was used, he would
have passed the walk component.
In further support of his request the applicant provides a copy
of his AF Form 422, Notification of Air Force Members
Qualification Status, Individual Fitness Assessment History, and
fitness calculations.
His complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.
________________________________________________________________
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. After
thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and the applicants
complete submission, we are not persuaded that relief is
warranted. While the applicant states that he had underlying
medical issues that exempted him from the cardio and sit-up
components of the FA, he has not provided sufficient evidence to
support his contentions. Therefore, 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. 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 this application
in Executive Session on 25 Jul 2013, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
, Vice Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket number
BC-2012-05107 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Sep 2012, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 30 Jan 2013, w/atch.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Feb 2013.
Exhibit d. Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Jan 2013, w/atchs.
Vice Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00715
The applicants last 5 FA results are as follows: Date Composite Score Rating 27 Aug 13 72.80 Unsatisfactory 28 Feb 13 75.00 Satisfactory *21 Nov 12 74.13 Unsatisfactory 15 May 12 76.30 Satisfactory 16 Feb 12 60.20 Unsatisfactory *Contested FA On 15 Nov 13, a similar request was considered and denied by the Fitness Assessments Appeals Board (FAAB) due to Insufficient evidence to support applicants medical claim. ______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02626
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends approval since per AFI 36-2905, Attachment 13, Sympathomimetic Bronchodilators such as Albuterol and Salmeterol may raise pulse when administered during the walk aerobic component of the FA. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03936
While the applicant renders a variety of arguments intended undermine the functioning of the heart rate monitors used during the contested FAs, the only real evidence he has provided in support of his assertions is a supporting statement from a colleague who says he made an independent measurement of the applicants heart rate after the end of the 5 May 13 FA. However, we do not find this statement or the applicants arguments sufficient to conclude that he is the victim of an error or...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05369
DPSIM states that the applicant provided a memorandum from the Director, Fitness and Sports Complex at Kadena Air Base, Japan which states her staff was aware of the manufacturers guidance that HR monitors can cause erratic readings and have previously separated walkers after crossing the finish line to keep their distance to avoid syncing with other HR monitors worn by other walkers. After he completed the cardio component of the FA, he had a 20 minute argument with three of the FACs and...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05967
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05967 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 30 Nov 2012 Fitness Assessment (FA) be declared void and removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). The medication the applicant was taking affected his heart rate, a factor that is not calculated in any FA component except the...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 03485
Furthermore, because the failed FAs resulted in the applicant receiving a referral EPR and cancellation of his promotion, to the grade of technical sergeant, we recommend the referral EPR for the period of 29 Feb 2012 to 11 Jul 2012 be declared void and removed from his records and that his promotion to the grade of technical sergeant be reinstated with a date of rank and effective date of 1 Sep 2012. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 19 Sep 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 29...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04682
The applicants last 5 FA results are as follows: Date Composite Score Cardio Rating 30 Oct 13 82.75 Exempt Satisfactory 28 Aug 13 32.60 32/0.00(1-mile walk) Unsatisfactory *13 Aug 13 71.75 Exempt Unsatisfactory 13 Feb 13 87.00 Exempt Satisfactory 7 Aug 12 80.20 15:52/44.10 Satisfactory * Contested FA A similar request was denied by the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB) on 14 Feb 14 on the basis of no letter from the commander to invalidate the Fitness Assessment. Also, no AF Form...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04605
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04605 XXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Fitness Assessment (FA) dated 12 Sep 13 be declared void and removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 20 Mar...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02521
Along with his personal statement, the applicant provided a memorandum from his medical provider that validates he had a medical condition that precluded him from achieving a passing score on the contested FA. On that same memorandum, the applicants medical provider indicated he had a documented medical condition that precluded him/her from achieving a passing score in a non-exempt portion of the FA test. IAW AFI 36-2905; Atch 1, Para 10, If an Airman becomes injured or ill during the...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04244
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of his request to remove the contested FAs; however, they recommend updating the AFFMS to reflect Exempt for the cardio component. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 8 March 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit C). ...