RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01186

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The Fitness Assessments (FAs) dated 24 Sep 10, 6 Dec 10, and 
3 Mar 11, be removed from the Air Force Fitness Management 
System (AFFMS).  

2.  The referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for 
the period 16 Apr 10 through 15 Apr 11, be removed from his 
records.

3.  He receive supplemental promotion consideration for 
promotion cycle 12E6.  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  He was not able to pass the contested FAs due to pre-
existing medical conditions.

2.  The referral “2” EPR was rendered as a result of the 
contested FA failures; however, a medical provider has since 
concluded medical conditions caused his failures.  

3.  As a result of the referral EPR, he was ineligible for 
promotion and was not considered during the promotion cycle 
12E6.  Since his medical conditions were the contributing 
factors for the contested FA failures, he should receive 
supplement promotion consideration.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The applicant served in the Regular Air Force in the grade of 
staff sergeant (E-5) during the matter under review.

On 24 Sep 10, the applicant participated in the contested FA, 
and attained an overall composite score of 57.50, resulting in 
an unsatisfactory rating. 

On 6 Dec 10, the applicant participated in the contested FA, and 
attained an overall composite score of 61.20, resulting in an 
unsatisfactory rating.

On 5 Jan 11, the applicant’s commander issued him a Letter of 
Reprimand (LOR) due the applicant’s second consecutive FA 
failure on 6 Dec 10.

On 3 Mar 11, the applicant participated in the contested FA, and 
attained an overall composite score of 69.30, resulting in an 
unsatisfactory rating.

On 8 Mar 11, the applicant was evaluated by an Ear, Nose, and 
Throat (ENT) specialist who identified problems of sleep apnea, 
chronic tonsillitis, chronic nasal obstruction secondary to 
nasal septal deviation, turbinate hypertrophy, and allergic 
rhinitis. 

On 23 Mar 11, the applicant’s commander issued him an LOR due to 
the applicant’s third consecutive FA failure on 3 Mar 11.

On 9 Apr 11, the applicant had a sleep study which revealed he 
had moderate to severe sleep apnea.

On 4 May 11, the applicant had a tonsillectomy for his chronic 
tonsillitis and septoplasty with turbinate resection for his 
nasal breathing problems.

On 15 Jun 11, the contested EPR was referred to the applicant 
for a “does not meet” standards rating and comments in Block 
III, Fitness.

On 24 Nov 13, the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB), 
considered and denied a request from the applicant on the basis 
that stress was not a limiting factor that prevents successful 
completion of the fitness assessment. 

On 1 Feb 14, the applicant was honorably discharged for 
intradepartmental transfer.

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




AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
remove the contested FAs due to the lack of supporting evidence.  
The applicant contends he had medical conditions that prevented 
successful completion of the contested FAs; however, he presents 
no documentation correlating with the time period (2009) for 
which he claims the medical problems began.  Furthermore, the 
documentation he did provide details visits, tests, and a 
statement from a doctor only indicating there was a 
“possibility” the medical conditions “may have” negatively 
impacted his ability to successfully pass the contested FAs.  
After a thorough review of the applicant’s records, they were 
unable to verify the applicant had medical conditions during the 
time period of the contended FAs.  The applicant provided 
character reference letters, three of which detail the 
applicant’s struggle with stress related to his job and/or 
personal life.  However, he has not provided clear evidence that 
his medical condition directly affected his performance during 
the contested FAs.

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

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request for 
removal of the referral EPR based on the recommendation of 
AFPC/DPSIM and given the lack of substantiating documentation; 
the referral fitness comment and marking in Section III should 
be considered valid and appropriate as record.  The applicant 
provided only his personal view of the circumstances with 
insufficient evidence to demonstrate an error or injustice.  To 
change this report would be an injustice to other airmen which 
have consulted with the appropriate channels and have received 
proper guidance regarding the fitness program, consulted with 
the medical community for proper medical profiles, and other 
airmen who have met the Air Force’s regulatory requirements.  
The evaluation was completed appropriately and within regulatory 
Air Force requirements.  An evaluation report is considered to 
represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is 
rendered; once a report is accepted for file, only strong 
evidence warrants correction or removal from an individual’s 
record.  The applicant has not substantiated the contested 
report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on 
their knowledge at the time.  Due to the applicant failing the 
contested FAs and absent evidence to prove otherwise, the 
referral report, as rendered, is accurate and was referred in 
accordance with applicable policies and procedures. 

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

AFPC/DPSOE defers to the recommendations of AFPC/DPSIM and 
AFPC/DPSID concerning removal of the contested FAs and referral 
EPR.  However, should the Board favorably consider these 
requests; the applicant should receive supplemental promotion 
consideration beginning with cycle 12E6.  In this respect, they 
note that cycle 12E6 was the first time the contested referral 
report was used in the promotion process.  His EPR score was 
118.80 his total score was 319.30, and the score required for 
selection for promotion was 329.83.  Should the referral EPR be 
removed from his records, his EPR score would be 135.00 points, 
resulting in an overall score of 335.00 points, thus, rendering 
him a select, pending promotion data verification and 
recommendation by his commander.  The applicant was considered 
for promotion to technical sergeant during cycle 13E6 and 
rendered a nonselect.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E.

BCMR Medical Consultant recommends removing the contested FAs.  
Under the AF Fitness Assessment Program, there is a chain of 
several designated responsibilities outlined, from the 
individual member, the health care provider, fitness assessment 
monitors, and commanders, among others.  Precariously missing 
from the applicant's case file is any documentation from a 
military health care provider, either clearing or exempting him 
from certain portions of the FA, or identifying a diagnosable 
illness or injury that could interfere with his FA.  The 
applicant had the opportunity to take his civilian surgeon's 
analysis to his military providers or to obtain an evaluation 
from a military health care provider.  However, acknowledging 
the applicant's statement that he was covered under “TRICARE 
Remote,” he likely performed duties geographically remote 
[usually 50 miles or greater] from any servicing military 
medical organization.  Thus, he was likely relegated to either a 
network civilian provider to serve as his Primary Care Manager 
or other TRICARE-authorized healthcare providers.  
Unfortunately, the applicant's effort to obtain a medical 
assessment, treatment, and medical documentation occurred only 
after his FA failures.  Noting the possible clandestine nature 
of the applicant's obstructed airways [nasal and oropharynx], 
which he reportedly believed to be "only allergies," it is 
reasonable to conclude that he may not have been aware of the 
true extent or nature of his medical limitations in order to 
generate an AF Form 469 or AF Form 422 restricting or exempting 
certain portions of his FA.  The case file indicates he sought 
medical care only after being directed by his First Sergeant.  
At the same time, poor aerobic conditioning, while under the 
physical exertion of running, may also manifest through the 
“difficulty” breathing;” as the breathing which would likely 
have been largely oral, by-passing any possible nasal 
obstruction to breathing caused by [septa] deviation of nasal 
turbinates.  Additionally, no pulmonary function testing has 
been accomplished to determine if the applicant experienced 
exercise-induced reversible airway hyper-responsiveness; which 
is also known to manifest after a sustained period of exertion 
and mouth breathing.  In rendering a recommended decision to the 
Board, there must be sufficient evidence of an error or 
injustice to warrant the desired change of the record.  Previous 
reviewers have recommended against granting relief.  However, in 
consideration of the totality of circumstances surrounding the 
applicant's case, to include his lack of ready access to a 
military medical installation familiar with fitness policies, 
his false assumption he was suffering from allergies, the 
recommendation of his First Sergeant, and his favorable fitness 
scores since receiving treatment of probable contributory causes 
(per his ENT surgeon), favorable consideration is recommended.  
However, the applicant is reminded that exemption of any portion 
of the FA for 12 months or more may be the cause for a Medical 
Evaluation Board (MEB) and possible separation, if the condition 
precluding completion of the exempted portion is also 
disqualifying for continued military service.

A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at 
Exhibit F.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations and the BCMR Medical 
Consultant evaluation were forwarded to the applicant on 
19 Jul 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit G).  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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an injustice.  We took notice of 
the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the 
case.  While the majority notes the comments of AFPC/DPSIM 
indicating that there is insufficient evidence indicating he has 
not provided clear evidence that his medical condition directly 
affected his performance during the contested fitness 
assessments (FA), the majority believes a preponderance of the 
evidence supports granting relief.  Based on the medical 
consultant’s review, the majority agrees that it is reasonable 
to conclude the applicant did not have appropriate military 
medical intervention in determining the relevant fitness 
exemptions based on his medical condition and, because of this 
and in view of the aggressive treatment required of the 
applicant’s condition and given the fact that said treatment 
seems to have resolved his fitness difficulties, the majority is 
convinced by a preponderance of the evidence that his medical 
condition likely adversely impacted his ability to attain 
passing scores on the contested FAs.  Therefore, the majority 
believes the contested FAs should be declared void and removed 
from his records.  Furthermore, in view of the fact the 
applicant was furnished two letters of reprimand (LOR) and a 
referral enlisted performance report (EPR) as a direct result of 
the contested FAs, the majority believes it also appropriate to 
recommend the LORs and referral EPR be declared void and removed 
from his records and that his corrected records be provided 
supplemental consideration for promotion for all promotion 
cycles where the referral EPR was a matter of record.  
Therefore, the majority recommends correcting the applicant’s 
records 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:

	a.  The Fitness Assessments (FA), dated 24 Sep 10, 
6 Dec 10, and 3 Mar 11, be declared void and removed from the 
Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS).  

	b.  The letters of reprimand (LOR), dated 5 Jan 11 and 
23 Mar 11, be declared void and removed from his records.

      c.  The referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), 
rendered for the period 16 Apr 10 through 15 Apr 11, be declared 
void and removed from his records.

	d.  His corrected records receive supplemental promotion 
consideration for any promotion cycles for which the referral 
EPR was a matter of record.


The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-01186 in Executive Session on 19 Aug 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member


By majority vote, the panel voted to grant the requested relief.  
xxxxxx voted to deny the application and has submitted a 
minority report, which is at Exhibit H.  The following 
documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-
01186 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Mar 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 24 Nov 13.
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDE, dated 11 Apr 14.
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 16 Apr 14.
Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, 
            dated 3 Jul 14.
Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Jul 14.
Exhibit H.  Minority Report, dated 21 Aug 14.