RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00751

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His 27 Jul 11, 31 Oct 11, 30 Jul 12, and 24 Oct 12 Fitness 
Assessment (FA) scores be removed from his records.

2.  His referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) be declared 
void and removed from his records.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He had a medical condition that precluded him from successfully 
completing the contested FAs.  As a result of the failures, he 
received a referral EPR.  An administrative separation package 
was created but later withdrawn when evidence was substantiated 
relative to his medical condition and Medical Evaluation Board 
(MEB) proceedings. 

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 14 Oct 03, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the 
Regular Air Force.

On 9 Nov 12, the contested EPR was referred to the applicant for 
a “does not meet” standards rating in Block II, Fitness, and 
comments related to his four fitness failures in a 24-month 
period.

On 4 Dec 12, the applicant was referred for Pulmonology Function 
testing due to complaints of shortness of breath (SOB) that only 
occur while running greater than one mile. 

On 7 Dec 12, the applicant’s test interpretation indicated that 
he had airway obstruction on the baseline spirometry with pre-
bronchodilator loop showing airway obstruction.  The readings 
suggested small airway disease.
On 10 Dec 12, the applicant was prescribed Flovent and 
Albuterol.  The applicant was instructed to take the Flovent two 
puffs twice a day and Albuterol as needed.  The chest x-ray 
taken on this date was normal.

On 7 Jan 13, the applicant was reevaluated reporting he was 
using the Flovent medication as prescribed; however, he did not 
have an opportunity to run due to his “no running” profile for 
lower back pain.  He reported that he had lower back pain since 
Oct 12, and his profile was valid through Jan 13.

On 14 Jan 13, a medical provider typed a note on letterhead 
regarding the applicant indicating the aforementioned treatment 
information and stated the applicant had no history of asthma.

On 28 Mar 13, the applicant’s supervisor did not recommend him 
for reenlistment.  Remarks by the unit Commander indicated the 
applicant had received numerous administrative actions and was 
placed on a Control Roster with an Unfavorable Information File 
(UIF).  On this date, the applicant marked the box indicating he 
intended to appeal this decision.

On 18 Apr 13, the applicant’s appeal was denied by the military 
personnel appeal authority.

On 10 May 13, the applicant acknowledged receipt that his appeal 
was denied by the appeal authority.  

On 31 May 13, the applicant was honorably separated from the 
Regular Air Force in grade of staff sergeant (E-5) and was 
credited with 9 years, 7 months, and 17 days of military 
service.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 also listed a reentry code 
of 2X (first, second term, or career airman not selected for 
reenlistment).  The narrative reason for separation indicated 
non-retention on active duty. 

On 15 Nov 13, the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB) denied 
relief to the applicant indicating that there was insufficient 
evidence to support his claim. 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letters prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C and D.    

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  The applicant had the responsibility 
as an Air Force member to ensure Fitness Program standards are 
maintained and he failed to do so.  While the applicant contends 
that the medical condition prevented successful completion of 
the contested FA’s, resulting in a referral EPR, there is 
insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s claim.  An EPR 
is deemed accurate as written when it became part of the 
applicant’s record; the EPR represents a rating chain’s best 
judgment at the time it is rendered.  In order to effectively 
challenge the report, this office must have supporting evidence 
from the rating chain to further clarify the need to make any 
modifications.  Without supporting evidence to prove otherwise, 
we conclude the applicant’s failure to maintain fitness 
standards caused the referral EPR and no other circumstance.  
Since the fitness scores remain valid, a removal of the 
contested report should be not entertained.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice.  The applicant had the responsibility as 
an Air Force member to ensure Fitness Program standards are 
maintained and he failed to do so.  Because the applicant has 
separated from the Air Force, his records are unavailable for 
review in the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS); 
therefore, this office is unable to identify the FAs he 
references.  The applicant could have consulted with authorities 
from the medical community and obtained documentation exempting 
him from appropriate components, thereby preventing the FA 
failures and referral EPR.  In accordance with the guidance in 
effect at the time (AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program (dated 1 Jul 
10) AFGM 4 (dated 26 Jun 12), “Upon receipt of a Medical 
Evaluation Board permanent exemption, a member is not subject to 
adverse personnel action for inability to take the FA.”  The 
applicant provided no results of the MEB he claims to have 
undergone (AF IMT 356), and without supporting evidence to prove 
otherwise, we conclude the applicant’s failure to maintain 
fitness standards caused the failures and no other circumstance.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit D.
________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 31 Jan 14 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 filed timely.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We took notice 
of the applicant's 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 
or injustice.  While the applicant has provided limited 
documentation indicating that he sought medical care for his 
medical condition, he has provided no evidence (AF Forms 422, 
Notification of Air Force Member’s Qualification Status, 469, 
Duty Limiting Condition Report, MEB evaluation board results) 
that would convince there was a causal relationship between his 
purported medical condition and contested FA failures.  
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 
no basis to recommend granting the requested 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 2013-00751 in Executive Session on 30 Apr 14, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number 2013-00751:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Feb 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, undated.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 15 Nov 13.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Jan 14.