RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02301

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs), closing 28 Oct 11, 
17 Apr 12 (referral), 29 Jan 13, and 29 Apr 13, be removed from 
his records.

2.  His administrative demotion to the grade of staff sergeant 
(E-5) and all associated documents be removed from his records 
and his grade to technical sergeant (E-6), with a date of rank 
(DOR) of 1 Nov 06 be reinstated.

3.  The applicant is apparently requesting supplemental 
consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant   
(E-7) during cycle 12E7.  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  He contested EPRs were affected by the three previously 
contested Fitness Assessments (7 Feb 11, 4 May 11, and 16 Feb 
12), which were subsequently invalidated and removed from his 
records by the AFBCMR.  As such, these reports should be removed 
from his records as well.  

2.  The erroneous FA results also resulted in his administrative 
demotion to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), effective 1 Aug 
11.  Furthermore, were it not for this unjust demotion, he would 
have been eligible to compete for promotion to the grade of 
master sergeant during promotion cycle 12E7.

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 
technical sergeant (E-6) prior to the events under review.

On 13 June 11, the applicant was served with a Notification of 
Demotion Action memorandum for failure to fulfill his duties as 
a Noncommissioned Officer (NCO), having failed six of his last 
seven consecutive FAs.  On 15 Jun 11, the applicant submitted a 
response to the proposed administrative demotion.

The applicant’s fitness assessment history, as it existed on the 
date the demotion action was rendered, is as follows:

Date 
Composite Score
Rating
* 4 May 11
69.80
Unsatisfactory
* 7 Feb 11
66.60
Unsatisfactory
 10 Nov 10
62.60
Unsatisfactory
 29 Apr 10
75.75
Good
 29 Jan 10
65.50
Poor
 14 Oct 09
72.75
Poor
  7 Aug 09
55.65
Poor
 28 Aug 08
75.05
Good

* Removed by the AFBCMR on 4 Apr 13 (AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2012-03121)

Note:  After the applicant’s 29 Apr 10 FA, a new rating scale 
(Unsatisfactory, Satisfactory, Excellent) was implemented across 
the Air Force.

On 1 Aug 11, the action was found legally sufficient and it was 
noted that the action complied with AFI 36-2502, Airman 
Promotion/Demotion Programs, dated 31 Dec 09, in that 
administrative demotion is an authorized response when a member 
fails four or more FAs.

On 9 Aug 11, the Demotion Authority approved the demotion action 
and, on that date, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
decision.

On 11 Aug 11, the applicant submitted another response to the 
administrative demotion action.

On 12 Aug 11, the applicant indicated that he would appeal the 
decision and submitted additional written matters on his behalf.  

On 25 Aug 11, after reviewing the additional documentation 
submitted by the applicant his appeal was denied.

On 9 Sept 11, the applicant was demoted from the grade of 
technical sergeant (E-6) to staff sergeant (E-5), with a DOR of 
1 Aug 11.  

On 16 Feb 12, the applicant participated in a FA where he 
attained an overall score of 72.00, which constituted an 
unsatisfactory rating.  This FA result was also removed by the 
AFBCMR on 4 Apr 13 (AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-03121).
On 17 Apr 12, the contested commander-directed EPR, rendered for 
the period 29 Oct 11 through 17 Apr 12, was referred to the 
applicant for a “does not meet” standards rating in Block 2 
(Standards, Conduct, Character, and Military Bearing) and for 
the following comment, “-Member was demoted due to third time 
failure of PT test.”  The EPR was also referred for a “does not 
meet” standards rating in Block 3 (Fitness) and for the 
following comment, “Member failed to meet minimum physical 
fitness requirements.”

On 4 Apr 13, the Board favorably considered the applicant’s 
request, AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-03121, to remove the FAs 
dated 7 Feb 11, 4 May 11, and 16 Feb 12. 

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 and D.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of applicant's request to remove 
the demotion action and restore his grade to technical sergeant.  
Although the AFBCMR removed three FAs, he still had other 
failures within the 24-month period for which the commander 
could administer administrative demotion.  His notification of 
demotion action stated the specific reason for demotion was the 
applicant's failure to fulfill his responsibilities as an NCO in 
accordance with AFI 36-2618, The Enlisted Force Structure.  He 
had failed six of his last seven FAs within a 21- month period, 
with the last three failures being consecutive.  The demotion 
action taken against the applicant was procedurally correct and 
there is no evidence there were any irregularities or that the 
case was mishandled in any way.  The commander acted within his 
authority to demote the applicant for his failure to fulfill his 
NCO responsibilities and maintain fitness standards.  In 
accordance with AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, Chapter 9, 
paragraphs 9.1.2. and 9.1.5.2., unit commanders may take adverse 
administrative action upon a member's unsatisfactory fitness 
score on an official fitness assessment.  Attachment 19 provides 
commanders guidance when selecting the appropriate 
administrative and personnel actions for members who fail to 
attain physical fitness standards.

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

AFPC/DPSIDE recommends denial of the request to void the EPRs 
closing 28 Oct 11, 29 Jan 13 and 29 Apr 13, but recommends 
voiding the EPR closing 17 Apr 12.  Although the applicant 
contends the four contested EPRs are unjust because they were 
based on three FAs which were removed by the AFBCMR, only the 
16 Feb 12 FA, which was removed, effects the contested referral 
EPR, closing 17 Apr 12.  Due to the fact the reason for the 
referral report no longer exists, it should be declared void and 
removed.  Without justification or reason to void the other 
reports, it appears the applicant wishes to void them since they 
reflect his grade as staff sergeant, rather than technical 
sergeant.  However, the applicant has not provided sufficient 
substantiating documentation or evidence to prove his assertions 
that the contested evaluations were rendered unfairly or 
unjustly, and has merely offered his view of events in the light 
that is most beneficial to him.  Air Force policy is that an 
evaluation report is accurate, as written, when it becomes a 
matter of record.  Additionally, it is considered to represent 
the rating chain's best judgment at the time it is rendered.  To 
effectively challenge an evaluation, it is necessary to hear 
from all the members of the rating chain - not only for support, 
but also for clarification/explanation.  The applicant has 
failed to provide any information from all the rating officials 
on the contested reports.  The reports were accomplished in 
direct accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and 
procedures.  Once a report is accepted for file, only strong 
evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an 
individual's record.

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

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant indicates that the prior relief granted by the 
Board to remove the 7 Feb 11 and 4 May 11 FAs should weigh 
heavily in favor of his request for reinstatement of his former 
grade of technical sergeant, since these scores were the reason 
for his demotion.  Since the  diagnosis of his hyperthyroidism 
in Jul 09, he was been under a doctor’s care; however, he was 
unaware of the exemption nuances related to the AFI 26-2905, 
Fitness, and his medical condition took about six months to 
control with medication.  Based on the attached AFFMS print-out 
he has attained satisfactory FA scores since 10 Nov 10, showing 
his commitment to fulfill his regulatory obligations within the 
Air Force as an NCO.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

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 with respect 
to the applicant’s request to remove his administrative demotion 
to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5).  After a thorough review 
of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete 
submission, the majority of the Board is not convinced that he 
is the victim of an error or injustice in this regard.  While 
the applicant argues that this Board’s previous action to remove 
his 7 Feb 11, 4 May 11, and 16 Feb 12 fitness assessment (FA) 
scores undermines the basis of the administrative demotion, the 
majority is not persuaded by the evidence presented that 
corrective action is warranted.  In this respect, the majority 
notes that notwithstanding the Board’s previous action to remove 
three FA failures, the applicant’s record still contains four FA 
failures, which still form the legitimate basis of the 
administrative demotion.  In this respect, the majority notes 
that AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, indicates 
that administrative demotion is an authorized response when a 
member has failed four FAs.  Therefore, the majority is not 
convinced there is a basis to recommend removal of the 
administrative demotion.  In view of this finding, the majority 
also finds no basis to recommend removal of EPRs closing 
28 Oct 11, 29 Jan 13, and 29 Apr 13 as they accurately reflect 
the applicant’s grade as staff sergeant.  Furthermore, having 
found no basis to recommend removal of the applicant’s demotion 
to staff sergeant or the noted EPRs, the majority finds no basis 
to recommend granting the applicant’s implied request for 
supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of master 
sergeant (E-7).

4.  Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has 
been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or 
injustice with respect to the applicant’s EPR closing 17 Apr 12.  
While the majority notes the comments of AFPC/DPSID indicating 
that it would be appropriate to remove said EPR because the FA 
result that caused his rater to indicate a “does not meet” 
standards rating in Block 3 (Fitness) was removed, the majority 
remains unconvinced that the EPR must be removed.  In this 
respect, the majority notes the EPR was also referred for a 
“does not meet” standards rating and comments in Block 2 
(Standards, Conduct, Character, and Military Bearing) related to 
his administrative demotion.  Therefore, in view of the fact we 
found no basis to undermine the demotion action, the majority 
finds the “does not meet” standards rating and comment related 
to the demotion accurate and, because the rating and comments 
related to the demotion action alone could have formed the 
legitimate basis for the EPR to be referred, the majority is not 
convinced the report should be removed based on the removal of 
the FA failure.  Instead, the majority believes it would be 
proper and fitting to recommend the EPR be corrected to reflect 
a “meets” standards rating in Block 2 (Fitness) and removal of 
the objectionable comment.  Therefore, the majority recommends 
the applicant’s records be corrected to the extent 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 the 
referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the 
period 29 Oct 11 through 17 Apr 12, be corrected as follows:

	   a.  The rating in Block 2 (Fitness), be corrected to 
reflect “meets” standards, instead of “does not meet” standards.

	   b.  The comment in Block 2, (Fitness), “Member failed to 
meet minimum physical fitness requirements,” be removed. 


The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-02301 in Executive Session on 19 Aug 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

By majority vote, the Board voted to correct the records as 
recommended. xxxxxx voted to grant additional relief and 
has provided a minority report at Exhibit G.  The following 
documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 May 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 30 Oct 13.
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDE, dated 24 Mar 14.
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Apr 14.
Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 May 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit G.  Minority Report, dated 19 Sep 14.