Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05762
Original file (BC 2012 05762.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-05762
		COUNSEL: NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Fitness Assessments (FAs) dated 4 and 5 Dec 12, be corrected 
in the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 4 Dec 12, his Abdominal Circumference (AC) measurement was 
done incorrectly.  The test administrator measured his AC at 
40.5 inches, 40.5 inches and 40 inches, respectively, which 
resulted in an automatic failure.  The 30 Space Wing Fitness 
Assessment Cell (FAC) would not allow him to take another 
“official” AC measurement that same day, so he retook the test on 
5 Dec 12.  The Joint Functional Component Command for Space 
(JFCC-Space) Unit Fitness Program Manager (UFPM) administered an 
“unofficial” taping and his AC was measured at 39 inches. 

On 5 Dec 12, the same test administrator measured his abdomen at 
38 inches, 38 inches, and 38 inches, respectively.  

Completing the test on two consecutive days resulted in lower 
scores and his failure to meet the minimum number of sit-ups. 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
FA history report and fitness score sheets. 

The applicant’s 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. 

On 4 Dec 12, the applicant took his FA; however, he did not meet 
the minimum requirement for the AC component with a measurement 
of “40.”  On the same day, his commander approved his request to 
retest within the 42 day reconditioning period in accordance with 
(IAW) AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program.

On 5 Dec 12, the applicant retested and achieved an overall score 
of 59.2, unsatisfactory. 

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 Lvl

2/26/13  44.90    15.80    8.70   10.00   79.40     Sat
*12/5/12  39.30   14.40    5.50   0.00    59.20     Unsat
*12/4/13  54.80   0.00     8.80   8.00    71.60     Unsat 
6/28/12  54.80    12.60    8.80   10.00   86.20     Sat
12/15/11 54.80    13.50    Exempt Exempt  85.38     Sat
12/8/10  56.60    17.00    8.70   9.40    91.70     Excellent

*Contested FAs.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial.  DPSIM states that IAW AFI 36-
2905, “Unit commanders may not mandate airmen retest any sooner 
than the end of the 90-day reconditioning period; however, 
airmen may volunteer to do so.  Retesting in the first 42 days 
after an unsatisfactory FA requires unit commander approval 
since recognized medical guidelines recommend 42 days as the 
minimum timeframe to recondition from unsatisfactory to 
satisfactory status in a manner that reduces risk of injury.”  
This guidance indicates that members have the option to test 
prior to the 42-day reconditioning period; however, testing 
prior may put the member at risk of injury.

It appears the applicant elected to retest the very next day, 
consequently putting himself at risk of injury.  

DPSIM states that 24 hours is not enough time to recover upon 
completion of a FA, as evidenced by the applicant’s inability to 
complete the sit-up component on 5 Dec 12.

There is insufficient evidence to support removing the 4 Dec 12, 
FA.  The applicant was not mandated to take the 5 Dec 12 FA; 
however, he elected to and the commander approved a retest 
within 24 hours of his previous assessment.

The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________





APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 6 Sep 13, for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit C).  As of this date, this office had not received a 
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 an 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 the rationale expressed as the basis of our conclusion 
that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or 
injustice.  In view of the above and 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 BC-2012-05762 in 
Executive Session on 17 Dec 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
      Member





The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-05762 was considered:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Dec 12, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 12 Aug 13.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Sep 13.




		
		Panel Chair


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03631

    Original file (BC-2012-03631.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, the PCM states the FA failure/weight gain “may” have had something to do with insufficient synthroid dose; once again, this does not definitively indicate the failed FA was due to a pre-existing medical condition. The applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to exempt him from the FA. The complete DPSIM evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05745

    Original file (BC 2012 05745.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Had the applicant discontinued the cardio component of the FA when he fell ill, he would have been briefed on the option to seek medical attention, which would (or could) have resulted in his commander invalidating the FA and allowing him to retest. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 27 Sep 13, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). We...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02767

    Original file (BC 2014 02767.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his request, the applicant provides a Memorandum from his medical provider dated 19 Mar 13 indicating he had a medical condition that precluded his passing the non-exempt portion of the test. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02006

    Original file (BC-2012-02006.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    His provider’s memorandum for record (MFR) stated he had a medical condition that prevented him from attaining a passing score on the walking component of his FA; however, the test was not removed from his records. Upon expiration of your 42 days reconditioning, you are cleared to test in all components of the AF Fitness Test.” On 29 May 12, a memorandum was sent to applicant requesting additional documentation for removal of his FA dated 29 Oct 10. While he contends that he was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02592

    Original file (BC 2013 02592.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    from the Unit CC;” and Atch 1, Para 13 “If the medical evaluation validates the illness/injury, the Unit Commander may invalidate the test results.” The applicant’s last 5 FA results are as follows: Date Composite Score AC Measurement Rating 2 Aug 2013 82.20 38.00” Satisfactory 15 May 2013 16.50 39.50” Unsatisfactory 6 Nov 2012 83.30 38.50” Satisfactory *24 Oct 2012 0.00 40.00” Unsatisfactory 30 Jul 2012 74.10 39.00” Unsatisfactory *Annotates Contested FA: On 7 Jan 14, a similar request was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04203

    Original file (BC-2012-04203.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04203 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 30 Mar 12, 11 Jun 12, and 14 Jun 12, Fitness Assessments (FAs) be removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05833

    Original file (BC 2013 05833.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    After the FA the applicant visited his medical provider and was given a corrected profile. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void/remove the FA dated 25 Jan 13. While the AFI does state that a member who is using albuterol medication should be exempt on the walk component, the applicant did not provide justification that would prove he was taking the medication at the time of his...

  • 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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-03025

    Original file (BC-2012-03025.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 B. In this case, the applicant was tested in accordance with his AF Form 422, dated 19 Dec 11, which states he is cleared to test on height, weight, and AC only and is exempt from all other components (start date 14 Dec 11 and end date 12 Apr 12). _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04477

    Original file (BC 2013 04477.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    She took another FA on 16 September 2011, receiving a score of 82.10, failing the sit-up component of the FA. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 5 September...