RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02171

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Fitness Assessment (FA), dated 16 Apr 12, be removed 
from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS).

2.  His referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for 
the period 2 May 11 through 1 May 12, be corrected to reflect 
there was no FA failure. 

3.  His line number for the grade of master sergeant (E-7) be 
reinstated.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  The contested FA failure was a result of a medical 
condition.  While running before the contested FA, he began to 
experience some pain and lack of movement within his hip.  He 
stretched more and tried to work through it, based on his 
Security Forces mentality to “suck it up and press on,” thinking 
it was nothing serious.  He had not failed an FA in over six 
years despite past injuries.  This failure prompted him to seek 
medical attention for his hip and he was referred to 
Orthopedics; his tests revealed a hinge impingement in his right 
hip.  The final test, scheduled for 15 Aug 12 revealed that he 
had a labral tear in his right hip. 

2.  His referral “4” EPR was rendered as a result of the 
contested FA failure.  Due to his lengthy medical evaluation, 
his EPR was closed-out on 19 June 12 as a referral after the 
appeal process.  

3.  He lost his line number for master sergeant (E-7) as a 
result of the contested EPR.  His stripe that he earned should 
be reinstated since his medical condition was the contributing 
factor to his FA failure.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The applicant is currently serving in the regular Air Force in 
the grade of technical sergeant (E-6).

On 16 Apr 12, the applicant participated in the contested FA, 
and attained an overall composite score of 73.20, resulting in 
an unsatisfactory rating.

On 30 May 12, the applicant signed a Promotion Statement of 
Understanding from the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) 
indicating that he had been informed of his selection for 
promotion to the grade of master sergeant (E-7), that he 
accepted the promotion, that he had taken action to withdraw any 
pending or approved retirement application, and that he agreed 
to obtain retainability for the required two-year Active Duty 
Service Commitment (ADSC) prior to the effective date of 
promotion.

On 7 Jun 12, the contested EPR was referred to the applicant for 
a “does not meet” standards rating in Block III, Fitness, and 
comments. 

On 29 Jun 12, a medical provider determined that the applicant 
required a right hip arthroscopy and scheduled him for the 
procedure on 15 Aug 12.

On 30 Jun 12, the applicant provided a response to the contested 
referral EPR indicating he made an honest attempt to pass the 
contested FA; however, he realized that due to his hip pain and 
past injuries (having had an AF Form 422, Notification of Air 
Force Member’s Qualification Status – requiring he only 
accomplish the walk assessment in Sept of 11), he should have 
sought medical attention prior to the FA.  He also indicated he 
was not made aware until two days prior to the promotion results 
were published that he would not be promoted and wear the stripe 
he earned.  He reiterated that his contested FA failure was the 
result of his medical condition which was under evaluation based 
on tests on 19 and 29 June 12 that were inconclusive and not due 
to lack of motivation to adhere to fitness standards.  He also 
indicated that he loved the military and had no major problems 
since being assigned to his current unit in 2006 and believed he 
was a strong asset to the Air Force. 

On 2 Jan 14, the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB), 
disapproved the applicant’s request to remove the contested FA 
failure due to insufficient evidence; specifically, no commander 
invalidation.  

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request for 
removal of the contested FA failure due to insufficient 
supporting documentation.  Although the applicant provides his 
orthopedic surgeon’s memo dated 5 Jan 12, certifying the 
applicant had a medical condition (a hip injury) contributing to 
his inability to perform the contested FA, he has not provided 
documentation from the Unit Commander indicating his/her 
decision to invalidate the FA.  IAW AFI 36-2905, Fitness 
Program, AFGM 3, dated 3 Jan 12, paragraph 10a, “If the medical 
evaluation validates the illness/injury, the Unit Commander may 
invalidate the test results.”

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

AFPC/DPSIDE recommends denial of the applicant’s request for 
removal of his referral EPR for the period 2 May 11 through 
1  May 12.  They note that he has not exhausted administrative 
remedies by appealing to the ERAB under the provisions of AFI 
36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  
Although the applicant provided a memo corroborating his medical 
condition from his orthopedic surgeon, he provided no AF Form 
469, Duty Limiting Condition Report, or AF Form 422, 
Notification of Air Force Member’s Qualification Status, 
confirming his fitness limitations.  As such, 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.  To 
effectively challenge an evaluation, it is necessary to hear 
from all members of the rating chain (not only for support, but 
for clarification/explanation).  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 not adhering to fitness standards and no 
evidence to prove otherwise, the referral report as rendered is 
accurate and in accordance with applicable policies and 
procedures.  It is ultimately the applicant’s responsibility to 
be ready to successfully pass the required fitness evaluation in 
the applicable components and to contact the medical community 
to resolve any medical issues prior to taking an FA. 

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

AFPC/DPSOE indicates the applicant was considered and 
tentatively selected for promotion to the grade of master 
sergeant (E-7) during cycle 12E7.  He received promotion 
sequence number (PSN) of 1061.0 which would have been 
incremented on 1 Oct 12, but he was rendered ineligible for 
promotion based on the contested referral EPR IAW AFI 36-2502, 
Table 1.1, Rule 22, and his line number was removed.  Should the 
Board grant the applicant’s requests to remove the contested FA 
and referral EPR, he should be provided supplemental promotion 
consideration to the grade of master sergeant, beginning with 
cycle 12E7. 

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

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 20 May 14 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit F).  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.  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 a statement from 
his orthopedic surgeon indicating his right hip injury 
contributed to his difficulty in achieving a passing score on 
the contested FA, he has provided no evidence of relevant 
exemptions on an AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report or 
AF Form 422, Notification of Air Force Member’s Qualification 
Status, that were applied as a result of the injury; nor, was 
information presented that would indicate his commander’s 
subsequent decision to allow the FA score to be entered into his 
record was somehow erroneous or constituted an abuse of 
authority.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no 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-2013-02171 in Executive Session on 19 Aug 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Mr.  , Panel Chair
	Mr.  , Member
	Ms.  , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Apr 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, DPSIM, dated 2 Jan 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit D.  Letter, DPSIDE, dated 11 Apr 14.
Exhibit E.  Letter, DPSOE, dated 24 Apr 14.
Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 May 14.