RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00804
		COUNSEL:  NONE
	HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 8 September 2012 
be removed from his record.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The referral report states he did not meet standards because he 
was overdue on a fitness assessment (FA).  His FA was due on 
31 April 2012.  Due to a traumatic car accident involving 
unconsciousness on 19 December 2011 - he was placed on a 
restricted profile from 11 January 2012 through 9 July 2012.  He 
obtained another physical from 9 August 2012 through 
30 September 2012.  On 27 August 2012, he received an AF Form 
422 (Notification of Air Force Member’s Qualification Status) 
and accomplished his FA on 17 September 2012, scoring a 78.50.  
Due to circumstances beyond his control, he still received a 
rating of “Does Not Meet” and he received a referral report.  He 
was demoted to senior airman on 27 December 2012 with over 
10 years of active duty.  Due to the referral report, his 
opportunity to re-test for his rank and continue his career in 
the Air Force has become obsolete.

In support of the applicant’s appeal, he provides a personal 
statement, the contested EPR, email communique and documents 
extracted from his military personnel records.

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

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 1 October 
2002.

The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation 
Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, 
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.

EPR profile since 2007 reflects the following:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

		10 Jan 07		5
		22 Oct 07		5
		22 Oct 08		5
		22 Oct 09		5
		22 Oct 10		5
		22 Oct 11		5
	 *  8 Sep 12		3

* Contested report.

The applicant filed a claim through the Fitness Assessment 
Appeals Board (FAAB).  The FAAB considered and denied the 
applicant’s appeal.  They concluded there was insufficient 
evidence to support the applicant’s claim.

On 17 June 2013, the applicant was discharged with a general 
(under honorable conditions) discharge under the provisions of 
AFI 36-3208 (Misconduct – Minor Infractions).  He served 10 
years 8 months and 17 days on active duty.

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial.  DPSIM states the evidence 
provided indicates an attempt by the UFPM to obtain AF Form 422 
and AF Form 469 from the HAWC via email.  If the 11 May 2012 
expiration date was accurate, the applicant would have had a 42-
day reconditioning period prior to taking the FA.  Of course, it 
could be assumed he was exempted from the FA, however, he did 
not provide the AF Form 422 or AF Form 469 reflecting his 
exemption status covering the time periods in question.  In 
addition, official FA scores are not available in the AFFMS due 
to the applicant’s involuntary separation from the Air Force on 
17 June 2013.

IAW AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, airmen are responsible for 
maintaining standards.  Specifically, each airman is responsible 
to remain current as defined in AFI 36-2905.  Failing to remain 
current as well as failing to attain a passing score on the 
applicable FA before the end of any evaluation reporting period 
will result in a “DOES NOT MEET STANDARDS” rating on the 
member’s OPR/EPR.  They are also responsible to monitor his/her 
FA exemptions, schedule any necessary medical examinations, and 
initiate FA test arrangements in a timely manner.

The DPSIM complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial.  DPSID states on 12 January 2010, 
the senior Air Force leadership strengthened the AF Fitness 
program which delayed implementation to 1 July 2010.  This was 
to ensure airmen were provided a six month timeframe to prepare 
for the new AF Fitness requirements.  The applicant took his FA 
in the month he was due, neither he nor his rating chain would 
have been in the position of having to process the report as a 
referral EPR on the basis of his fitness not being current.  The 
main cause of the referral was not due to anything other than 
the applicant’s failure to remain current on his FA.  The 
evaluation was completed appropriately and within regulatory AF 
requirements.

An evaluation report is considered to represent the rating 
chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered.  DPSID 
contends that once a report is accepted for file, only strong 
evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an 
individual’s record.  The burden of proof is on the applicant.  
The applicant has not substantiated that the contested report 
was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on 
knowledge available at the time.

The DPSID complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 31 January 2014, copies of the Air Force evaluations were 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 
30 days (Exhibit E).  As of this date, no response has been 
received by this office. 

________________________________________________________________
_

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.  The 
applicant’s contentions are duly noted; 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 victim of an 
error or injustice.  We do not find the documentation presented 
sufficient to conclude the contested report is an inaccurate 
assessment of his performance or that it was inappropriately 
rendered.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.

________________________________________________________________
_

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.

________________________________________________________________
_

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-00804 in Executive Session on 20 March 2014, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 February 2013, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  DD Form 214, AF Forms 910, AF IMT 910, Referral
               EPR documentation.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 20 September 2013.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 21 January 2014.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 January 2014.









4