RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2013-
02564
      COUNSEL: NONE
	            					HEARING DESIRED: NOT 
INDICATED

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 
24 December 2009 through 23 December 2010, be voided and removed 
from his record.  

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested EPR was written based on his failure of his 
Fitness Assessment (FA) on 29 November 2010.  He initially 
failed the cardio walk test portion of his FA due to having 
issues with his legs.  He was unable to re-test prior to his EPR 
closing out due to not having enough time to meet the 42-day 
minimum requirement to re-test.  After seeking medical care, he 
was diagnosed with Compartment Syndrome in both legs which cause 
pain and swelling in his shins.  He subsequently had surgery to 
correct his condition in April 2011.  

The reason for his application being late is that he was unaware 
that he could get his record corrected at the time and when he 
did find out, he was deployed and had no way of getting most of 
the documentation needed.  He was unable to test for master 
sergeant (E-7) in March 2011 due to his referral EPR.  He tested 
again in March 2012 and missed being promoted by nine points.  
He believes if his EPR was corrected, he would have been 
promoted to master sergeant by now.  

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement; and, copies of the contested EPR documentation, an 
Individual Fitness Assessment History, and the medical referral 
for his leg condition.  

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

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade 
of technical sergeant (E-6).  

The following is a resume of the applicant’s EPR profile:

	PERIOD ENDING		PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

    24 May 98 (A1C)				5
    24 May 99				5
    24 May 00 (SrA)				5
    23 Dec 00				5
    23 Dec 01				5
    23 Dec 02 (SSgt)				5
    23 Dec 03				5
    23 Dec 04				5
    23 Dec 05				5
    23 Dec 06				5
    23 Dec 07				5
    23 Dec 08 (TSgt)				5
    23 Dec 09				5
    23 Dec 10*				4
    23 Dec 11				5
    23 Dec 12				5

* Contested report 

On 29 November 2010 and 6 October 2011, the applicant scored 
unsatisfactory on his FAs 

The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s 
military service records, are contained in the evaluations by 
the Air Force offices of primary responsibility at Exhibits C 
and D.  

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial.  DPSIM states the information 
provided by the applicant suggests he was diagnosed and treated 
for Non-Traumatic Compartment Syndrome; a condition which may 
have prevented him from achieving a passing score.  However, the 
documentation provided is insufficient to make a final 
determination.  

The complete DPSIM evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit 
C. 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial.  DPSID states the applicant did 
not file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board 
(ERAB).  He did not provide any supporting evidence to prove his 
claims nor did he provide a statement from his provider or 
concurrence from his unit commander.  Without any supporting 
evidence to prove otherwise, they conclude that it was the 
applicant’s failure to maintain fitness standards that caused 
the report to be referred, not any other circumstance.  It was 
ultimately the applicant’s responsibility to be ready to 
successfully pass the required fitness evaluation in the 
applicable component.  Lastly, DPSIM provided an advisory 
denying the applicant’s request to remove the applicant’s FA 
stating the medical documentation does not support the FA 
failure.  Since the FA remains valid, a removal of the contested 
EPR should not be entertained.  

It was the applicant’s responsibility to ensure he was properly 
prepared for his FA.  Although he feels this was an injustice, 
there were avenues to ensure any medical issues were taken into 
consideration prior to the EPR close-out date; not only by the 
rating chain, but with proper authorities within the medical 
community.  To change or void the contested EPR would be an 
injustice to other airman which have consulted with the medical 
community and received the proper medical profiles regarding the 
fitness program or the other airman which have met the 
regulatory Air Force requirements.  

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D.  

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 5 May 2014, for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E).  As of this date, this office has received no 
response.

________________________________________________________________
_

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.  We note the applicant’s contention that he 
failed his FA, dated 29 November 2010, due to a pre-existing 
medical condition.  However, the applicant has not provided any 
evidence to indicate the FA failure has been voided and as such, 
we find no basis to void the contested EPR.  We further find no 
evidence that he was treated differently than any other member 
in a similar situation.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence 
to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the 
relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.

________________________________________________________________
_

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 
that 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-2013-02564 in Executive Session on 12 June 2014, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      		                     , Panel Chair
      		                     , Member
			                     , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-02564:

Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 28 Feb 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 7 Jan 14.
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDE, dated 25 Apr 14.
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 May 14.




                   
Panel Chair
4

3