Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02274
Original file (BC 2013 02274.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02274

XXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Fitness Assessment (FA), dated 26 Apr 13 be declared void and removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The applicant states that due to faulty electronic equipment he received an unsatisfactory on the cardio component of the FA.

In support of his appeal, the applicant submits; a personal letter to the board along with a witness statement from another FA participant indicating that they both tried two different heart monitors and both of them had abnormally high readings.  The applicant believes that the equipment provided, from the FAC, was faulty and was the cause of his FA failure. 

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 26 Apr 13, the applicant participated in the contested FA and attained a composite score of 74.13 unsatisfactory. 

The applicant’s last five FA results are as follows:

Date 
Composite Score
Rating
26 Jul 13
86.50
Satisfactory 
*26 Apr 13
74.13
Unsatisfactory
19 Sep 12
79.50
Satisfactory
26 Jun 12
60.70
Unsatisfactory
26 May 08 
72.00
Marginal
* Contested FA

On 16 Dec 13 a similar request was considered and denied by the Fitness Assessments Appeals Board (FAAB) due to “Insufficient evidence; specifically witness statement to support injustice.” 

IAW AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program (AFGM5) dated 3 Jan 13, paragraph 1.15.1 0.2., "Trains FAC staff (where a FAC exists) to conduct official FAs, including proper equipment procurement, maintenance and use." In addition, paragraph 1.20.1.8 also states that the FAC will ensure that FA equipment is procured, maintained, and replaced as needed. 

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request and states, in part, that although the applicant contends the equipment provided by the FAC during the contested FA was faulty, he has not provided a memorandum from the FAC, indicating the faulty equipment caused the applicant to fail the FA.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachments, was forwarded to the applicant on 10 Jan 14 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C).

________________________________________________________________

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 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.  While the applicant has a witness statement from another FA participant, he has not met his burden of proving the contested FA should be disturbed.  In this respect, we note the applicant contends the FAC heart rate monitor equipment was not been working properly; however, there is no indication that he addressed the issue with the FAC or his chain-of-command.  More specifically, the applicant failed to provide a memorandum, from the FAC supporting the likelihood of his claim.  Should the applicant provide such evidence, we would be willing to reconsider his request.  However, in view of the above and 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-2013-02274 in Executive Session on 27 Mar 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Ms. XXXXXXXXX, Chair
	Ms. XXXXXXXXX, Vice Chair
	Ms. XXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-02274 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 May 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 29 Oct 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 14.




                                   XXXXXXXXX
                                   Chair	


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00715

    Original file (BC 2013 00715.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s last 5 FA results are as follows: Date Composite Score Rating 27 Aug 13 72.80 Unsatisfactory 28 Feb 13 75.00 Satisfactory *21 Nov 12 74.13 Unsatisfactory 15 May 12 76.30 Satisfactory 16 Feb 12 60.20 Unsatisfactory *Contested FA On 15 Nov 13, a similar request was considered and denied by the Fitness Assessments Appeals Board (FAAB) due to “Insufficient evidence to support applicant’s medical claim.” ______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03936

    Original file (BC 2013 03936.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    While the applicant renders a variety of arguments intended undermine the functioning of the heart rate monitors used during the contested FAs, the only real evidence he has provided in support of his assertions is a supporting statement from a colleague who says he made an independent measurement of the applicant’s heart rate after the end of the 5 May 13 FA. However, we do not find this statement or the applicant’s arguments sufficient to conclude that he is the victim of an error or...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04102

    Original file (BC 2013 04102.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    A similar request was considered and denied by the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB), on the basis the applicant did not provide documentation from the FAC personnel stating the scores were entered into AFFMS incorrectly or provide the original score sheet. The applicant’s last six FA results are as follows: Date Composite Score Rating 12 Sep 13 90.89 Excellent (Exempt from SU) 7 Aug 12 94.20 Excellent 22 Jun 11 91.30 Excellent 29 Apr 11 86.50 Unsatisfactory (minimum SU) *3 Oct...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01302

    Original file (BC 2013 01302.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01302 XXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Fitness Assessment (FA), dated 09 Jan 13 be declared void and removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). On 09 Jan 13, the applicant participated in the contested FA and attained a composite score of 70.88,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03418

    Original file (BC 2013 03418.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    If any of the measures differ by more than one inch from the other two, the tester will take an additional measurement. The tester will record this value as the AC measurement. ________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02277

    Original file (BC 2013 02277.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 24 Apr 13, the applicant participated in the contested FA and attained a composite score of 64.40 unsatisfactory due to failure to achieve minimum requirements on the AC. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit B ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In response to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant submitted; a memorandum from the FAC validating that she in fact asked for a re-tape by another...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03347

    Original file (BC 2013 03347.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Commander memorandum, medical docs, or FAC memorandum).” In accordance with (IAW) guidance at the time of contested FA, AFI 36-2905_ Fitness Program AFGM3 (3 Jan 12), Attachment 1, Section 10, “If an Airman becomes injured or ill during the FA and is unable to complete all required components, he/she will have the option of being evaluated at the Medical Treatment Facility (MTF) but his/her test will still count unless rendered invalid by the Unit Commander. The FSQ should be completed no...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02692

    Original file (BC 2013 02692.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. A list of the applicant’s last five FA results is as follows: Date Composite Score Rating 26 Jul 2013 79.30 Satisfactory *30 Apr 2013 36.50 Unsatisfactory 12 Oct 2012 81.90 Satisfactory 3 Oct 2012 71.60 Unsatisfactory 15 May 2012 Exempt Exempt *Contested FA On 7 Jan 14, a similar request was considered and denied by the Fitness Assessments Appeals Board (FAAB), on the basis of “Insufficient evidence; specifically no...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05443

    Original file (BC 2013 05443.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05443 XXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Fitness Assessments (FAs) dated 17 Dec 12, 15 Mar 13, and 12 Jun 13 be declared void and removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). In support of his appeal the applicant submits; a “Medical Determination” letter,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02468

    Original file (BC 2013 02468.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02468 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Fitness Assessment (FA) dated 28 Nov 12, which resulted in a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and consequent discharge board, be removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). ...