RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00694
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His demotion from the grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt/E-6) to the grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt/E-5) be rescinded.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was demoted after four consecutive Fitness Assessment (FA) failures. However, he has since been diagnosed with asthma and his doctor says asthma can directly affect the outcome of FAs. By following his doctors orders, he has passed his ensuing FAs.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant served in the Regular Air Force in the grade of TSgt on the dates of the FAs in question.
On 12 Aug 10, 9 Nov 10, 3 Mar 11, and 16 May 11, the applicant failed to obtain passing scores on FAs.
On 18 May 11, the applicants commander notified him that he was initiating administrative demotion to the grade of SSgt due to the applicants failure to keep fit. The applicant appealed the decision, but his appeal was disapproved.
On 23 May 11, the applicant was administratively demoted to SSgt.
The applicants most recent FA results are as follows:
Date
Composite Score
Rating
4 Apr 13
87.25
Satisfactory
21 Jun 12
91.00
Excellent
30 Dec 11
81.90
Satisfactory
16 May 11
69.10
Unsatisfactory
3 Mar 11
67.50
Unsatisfactory
9 Nov 10
56.60
Unsatisfactory
12 Aug 10
73.90
Unsatisfactory
18 Mar 10
79.60
Good
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, which are included at Exhibits C and D.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. According to the applicant, during the first three FA failures he was on a medical profile which required him to walk due to having been diagnosed with plantar fasciitis. During his fourth failed FA on 16 May 11, he experienced an asthma attack which prevented him from passing. Only after experiencing breathing difficulties again during his 30 Dec 11 FA, which he passed, did he schedule an appointment with his primary care manager (PCM) where he was diagnosed with asthma. There is insufficient evidence to support the applicants claim that the asthma caused the FA failures. The applicant has not provided clear documentation from the PCM proving his asthma condition affected him at the time the FAs were administered.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice in the demotion action. AFI 10-248, Fitness Program, states unit commanders will consider administrative action for members who have composite scores of less than 75 for greater than 90 days and, following primary care manager evaluation, will take administrative action as appropriate against those identified as in poor fitness for greater than a continuous 180-day period. Based upon the information the applicants commander had at the time, he acted within his authority to demote the applicant. AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicants request to remove the contested FAs. Therefore, the applicants request to remove the demotion action should be denied.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 18 Oct 13 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).
________________________________________________________________
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 applicants complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material 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.
________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-00694 in Executive Session on 4 Feb 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-00694 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Jan 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 20 Sep 13, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 30 Sep 13.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Oct 13..
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04035 (2)
In a letter dated 22 Oct 13, the demotion authority reinstated his grade to SSgt with his original Date of Rank (DOR) of 9 Jan 13. As such, if the applicant wants to make a request to remove the referral EPRs, he must first exhaust all available avenues of administrative relief provided by existing law or regulations, such as the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) prior to seeking relief before this Board, as required by the governing Air Force Instruction. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01519
He be provided the E-5 back-pay from the date of his 15 May 13 demotion date. The narrative reason for his retirement was Temporary Early Retirement Authority. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial due to lack of supporting evidence (i.e. medical validation, commander's invalidation...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04345
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicants request to remove the demotion action and restore his rank to Technical Sergeant. Therefore, in view of the fact that we have determined the evidence is sufficient to conclude there was a causal nexus between the medical condition for which the applicant received a disability discharged and his ability to attain passing scores on his FAs, we also believe it is reasonable to conclude...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02775
________________________________________________________________ On 7 Jan 14, the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB) disapproved the applicants request for removal of his failed FAs from the AFFMS stating that he should have tested within the limits of his profile. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the request for removal of the failed FAs dated 4 Apr 11 and 14 Nov 11 due to the lack of supporting...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02515
In paragraph 6.1.6, it states if the demotion authority restores the airman's original grade following the demotion, he or she must do so between three and six months after the effective date of the demotion. Based on the available evidence, which includes statements from the applicant's current commander and first sergeant, medical records, FA history since 2004, and the demotion action file; the demotion action was procedurally correct and there is no evidence that the applicant's...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00197
The applicant has not provided documentation from his unit commander or primary care manager for invalidating the FA, nor did he provide the specific FA failure. The applicant held the grade of SSgt on the date of his retirement; therefore, his record correctly reflects his retired grade as SSgt. On 11 Dec 13, the Secretary of the Air Force found the applicant served satisfactorily in the grade of TSgt and ordered his advancement to the grade of TSgt when his time on active duty and his...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03455
On 25 Apr 12, the applicant received notification of demotion action under AFI 36-2502, Failure to Keep Fit, paragraph 6.3.5, due to four fitness assessment failures within a 24-month period. However, recommend removing FA dated 18 Jun 10, based on the fact that this was before the implementation of AFI 36-2905 (AFGM2), dated 20 Dec 10, giving Unit Commanders the authority to invalidate FAs. Although the applicant provided a memorandum from his medical provider stating that he had a...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-05214
During a medical appointment on 1 April 2011, his PCM referred him to physical therapy for his knee, again; he was not issued a profile for running. The new PCM stated that he should not have been running or testing if he had gout in his foot. He had not requested the removal of the January 2011 FA due to lack of medical documentation.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02502
His records be corrected to show that he is now and was promotion eligible during the time he was placed on a Control Roster. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOA recommends closing the case, since the applicant's record currently reflects his requested actions and they do not have the history, nor are they the OPR for control roster actions; however, based on the information provided the previous RE code 4I would have been a result of...
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...