RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-05369
		COUNSEL: NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Fitness Assessment (FA) dated 14 Nov 12, be removed from 
the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His Heart Rate (HR) monitor was synchronized with another 
walker’s monitor.  He removed the monitor from his chest; 
however, the watch was reading another tester’s HR monitor.  
Since the walkers in front of him were experiencing the same 
issues, the Physical Training Leader (PTL) augmentees requested 
all the walkers behind them separate to avoid the same issue.  

As he was nearing his last lap, his HR monitor reflected 
145 beats per minute.  

He and another officer crossed the finish line at the same time 
(12:13) and both were asked to show their respective times.  
However, his watch did not reflect his HR, so the PTL moved his 
arm around in an effort to bring the watch closer to his chest 
and at the same time inadvertently moved it closer to the other 
officer.  At this point his HR monitor read 174 beats per 
minute, the same exact reading as the other officer, who was 
moved to another area to have her HR monitor read.  

He requested a manual pulse check because he knew the HR 
monitor reading was in error.  He stepped approximately 30 feet 
away from the other officer and the monitor read 137 beats per 
minute.  

He removed his monitor and walked over to the Fitness 
Assessment Cell (FAC) to show him the reading and again it 
picked up the HR of the other officer.  

He refused to sign the form because of the incorrect HR 
reading; however, the FAC entered his scores in the AFFMS.

The Polar HR system manual states that “if the heart rate 
reading becomes erratic, extremely high or shows nil (00), make 
sure that there is no other HR transmitters within 1 meter/3 
feet and the transmitter fits snugly and is moistened, clean 
and undamaged.”

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
Fitness Screening Questionnaire and score sheet, AF Form 422, 
Notification of Air Force Member’s Qualification Status, letter 
from Fitness Director recommending his score be removed, and 
other various documentation in support of his appeal.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in 
the grade of captain. 

The following is a summary of the applicant’s previous FA 
scores:

Date  Cardio   AC (in)    Push-   Sit-   Composite  Fitness 
      Results  Score      Ups     Ups    Score	  Score Level

11/12 42.30    14.40      6.50    8.30   71.50      Unsat
2/12  53.70    14.40      8.50    9.50   86.10      Sat
6/11  52.40    13.50      10.00   8.50   84.40      Sat
11/10 44.90    15.80      10.00   10.00  80.70      Sat
4/10  34.00    21.00      10.00   10.00  75.00      Good
3/09  34.00    21.30      10.00   10.00  75.30      Good
5/08  34.00    21.30      10.00   10.00  75.30      Good
1/08  Exempt   Exempt     Exempt  Exempt Exempt     Exempt
1/07  Exempt   21.00      10.00   10.00  82.00      Good 
2/06  34.00    21.00      10.00   10.00  75.00      Good

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial; however, they recommend exempting 
the cardio component of the FA.  

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 manufacturer’s 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.  

DPSIM states that the FAC conducted the cardio component of the 
FA as directed by the AFI; however, they overlooked the 
technical guidance provided by the manufacturer to maintain 
appropriate distance between multiple monitors.

DPSIM states that there is no evidence the other components of 
the FA were not administered in accordance with AFI 36-2905, 
Fitness Program

The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that the effects of the faulty HR monitor 
after the walk had a huge impact outside of the inaccurate HR 
registered.  Prior to completing the other components of the 
FA, both he and the FAC were under the impression (incorrect) 
that he had already failed the cardio component based on the 
faulty equipment.  

After he completed the cardio component of the FA, he had a 
20 minute argument with three of the FACs and his tester 
regarding the accuracy of the HR monitor and requested a manual 
pulse rate or a retest with a new monitor.  During this 
discussion, two of the FACs stated that “he was questioning 
their integrity” and appeared upset.  He informed the FACs that 
he was questioning the test and not them.

During the push-up component of the FA, one of the FACs he 
argued with stood behind him to observe.  This was 
inappropriate because a FAC is supposed to randomly and 
impartially observe members.  The individual that was observing 
him and the FAC were both counting his push-ups, along with his 
assigned “grader.”  Around the 25th push-up the observer 
instructed him to “go lower”.  After completing four more 
correct push-ups, the FAC pointed to his assigned grader, 
removed him and instructed another one of the FACs he had 
argued with to finish the remainder of his push-ups.  

He had completed 29 push-ups before the 30 second mark was 
given.  He completed 20 more push-ups; however, only 2 were 
counted for a total of 31 push-ups.  While he does not question 
the integrity of the grader, he does not believe the testers 
were impartial considering they were involved in a 20 minute 
argument in which they stated he was questioning their 
integrity.  

Removing the cardio component of the FA does not take into 
account the second and third order effects of the argument, 
being told you already failed, and the testers feeling their 
integrity was being questioned.  

The applicant wants his entire FA removed as requested by him 
and the Director, Fitness and Sports Complex in his original 
request.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.   In this 
respect we note that the FAC failed to brief the applicant on 
the proper procedures on the HR rate monitors resulting in an 
erroneous reading during the cardio component of the contested 
FA.  The Director of the FAC has provided a letter dated 14 Nov 
12, stating that her staff did not consider terminating the 
test because the applicant had crossed the finished line.  
However, it is noted that they have changed their procedures to 
provide more detailed instructions. Nonetheless, the FAC 
Director recommends the applicant’s FA score be removed from 
the AFFMS and we agree.  While we note that DPSIM only 
recommends partial relief, given the unequivocal support from 
the FAC and noting the circumstances of this case, we find the 
applicant has presented sufficient evidence to support the 
removal of his FA dated 14 Nov 2012. Therefore, we recommend 
his records be corrected as indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that the 
Fitness Assessment (FA) dated 14 November 2012, be declared 
void and removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System 
(AFFMS).

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered BC-2012-05369 in 
Executive Session on 5 Sep 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
      Member





All members voted to correct the records as indicated.  The 
following documentary evidence was pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-05369 considered:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Nov 12, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 24 Jan 13.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Feb 13.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Mar 13.




		
		Panel Chair