RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01305
XXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. The Fitness Assessment (FA), dated 21 Nov 12, be declared void and removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS).
2. His referral AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSgt), rendered for the period 11 Jan 12 thru 10 Jan 13 be removed from his records.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He had a medical condition that prevented him from passing the cardio component on his 21 Nov 12 FA.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5).
The applicant provided a memorandum from his medical provider indicating that he had a documented medical condition that precluded him from achieving a passing score in a non-exempt portion of the FA test.
A similar request was considered and denied on 24 Nov 13 by the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB), based on insufficient evidence to show the medical condition affected the FA.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial and states, in part, the applicant did not provide documentation of an invalidation memorandum from the unit commander.
The complete DPSIM evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicants request to void the contested report. DPSIM found the evidence insufficient to warrant removal the contested FA; therefore, DPSID finds no basis to remove the contested report.
The applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports; however, he failed to provide supporting documentation and allowed the case to close.
The applicant has failed to provide any evidence to prove his assertions that the EPR was not rendered fairly based solely on the fitness failure. There are avenues to ensure that any medical issue is taken into consideration prior to the report close-out date; not only by the rating chain, but with proper authorities within the medical community. Therefore, to change or void the report would be an injustice to other airman who had consulted with the medical community and received the proper medical profiles regarding the fitness program or the other airman that have met the regulatory AF requirements.
The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 13 Jun 14, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant 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 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 and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. While the applicant has provided medical documentation indicating a medical condition precluded him from achieving a passing score in a non-exempt portion of the contested FA, he has not met with burden of proving it should be removed from his records. In this respect, we note the applicant has failed to provide a letter from the unit commander recommending the contested FA be invalidated. Further, the applicant provides no evidence to support removing the contested referral-report. Therefore, in view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
________________________________________________________________
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-2013-01305 in Executive Session on xx xxx xx, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. XXXXXXXXX, Jr., Chair
Ms. XXXXXXXXX, Member
Mr. XXXXXXXXX, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Mar 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Extracts from Military Master Personnel Record.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 24 Sep 13, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 22 May 14.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Jun 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01079
RATING PERIOD OVERALL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT * 28 Jul 12 4 28 Nov 11 4 28 Nov 10 5 *Contested Report The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which is at Exhibit C and D. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denying removing the applicants FA test dated 11 Jul 12; however, they recommend exempting his cardio component...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03598
________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He failed the contested FA due to a medical condition that prevented him from achieving a passing score. The DPSID complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the evaluation and states he would like to amend his request to have the EPR rendered for the period 1 February 2011...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01291
His referral EPR dated from 7 Nov 2009 through 6 Nov 2010 was a direct result of the contested FA failures. His referral EPR dated from 18 Jun 11 through 23 Mar 12 was a result of his FA failure and a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) dated 7 Mar 2012, issued for domestic violence. In reference to the EPR rendered 17 Jun 2011, DPSID found that based upon the legal sufficiency of the Article 15, and no evidence the nonjudicial punishment was ever set aside, they find that its mention in the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02880
In a letter dated 7 Apr 14, the applicants Primary Care Manager (PCM) stated that it was evident that the Synthroid regimen was being adjusted when the applicant failed her now one remaining FA failure on the AC measure. The complete FAAB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicants request for removal of her referral EPR for the period through 16 Jun 11. In this respect, we note the applicant provides a letter dated 7 Apr 14, from her PCM...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05833
After the FA the applicant visited his medical provider and was given a corrected profile. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicants 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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-02801
If she had been on the correct profile when she completed the June 2011 FA, she would have passed the FA with a 75.5 score and would not have received the referral EPR. DPSID states that based on the AFPC/DPSIM advisory to grant the relief sought to exempt the cardio component of the FA dated 8 June 2011, they contend that the fitness assessment failure is an inappropriate comment on the contested referral EPR, and as a result, the referral EPR should be removed from her record. The...
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-2012-03320
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The medical condition that prevented him from doing the sit-up portion of the Air Force FA was not discovered until after his fourth failure and recommendation for discharge. On 22 Feb 12, the applicant participated in the second contested FA, attaining a composite score of 67.60, which constituted an unsatisfactory assessment.The following is a resume of his EPR ratings: RATING PERIOD PROMOTION...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02474
His Fitness Assessment (FA) dated 10 Apr 12, be removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSID states based on the recommendation from DPSIM to only exempt the cardio portion of the applicants FA test and not remove the entire 10 Apr 12 FA, they recommend the AFBCMR deny the applicants request to void the contested EPR. ________________________________________________________________ _ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 04871
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He disagrees with the findings of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility. The letter from his Flight Surgeon and 844th Communications Squadron Executive Director states that he was diagnosed with a medical condition that precluded him from achieving a passing fitness score and that he should be exempt from the cardio component...