RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	 DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02775
		 	 COUNSEL:  NONE
    	 		 HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Fitness Assessments (FAs) dated 4 Apr 11 and 14 Nov 11, 
be void and removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System 
(AFFMS).    

2.  His referral EPR for the period ending 16 Nov 11 be void and 
removed from his records.    

3.  His Promotion Sequence Number (PSN) for Cycle 11E6 to the 
grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt, E-6) be reinstated.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In Nov 11, he received a referral EPR for failure to meet 
fitness standards.  The failed FAs were due to a year-long ankle 
injury which resulted in surgery and severe prolonged 
limitations in rehabilitative activities and physical fitness.  

His chain of command supported an Exception to Policy (ETP) for 
reinstatement of his PSN to the grade of TSgt.  

He submitted an application to the Evaluation Report Appeals 
Board (ERAB); however, his application was returned and it was 
recommended he forward his request to the Board.

In support of his requests, the applicant provides a personal 
statement with a chronological sequence of events, copies of the 
ETP request for reinstatement of his promotion to the grade of 
TSgt, AF Forms 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSgt); 
AFFMS information, SF 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care; 
and AF Forms 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report.  

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 TSgt having assumed that grade effective and with a Date of 
Rank (DOR) of 1 Nov 13.

According to AF Form 469 dated 15 Mar 11, he was restricted  
from running more than 100 yards and any duties requiring high 
impact.  The date of release from the restriction was 11 Apr 11.

According to AF Form 469 dated 18 Aug 11, he was restricted  
from any duties requiring running, high impact to lower 
extremities, walking more than 50 yards, pushing or pulling 
against resistance with lower extremities, bending or twisting 
at the waist greater than 30 degrees and lifting of objects 
weighing more than 40 pounds.  The date of release from the 
restriction was 12 Oct 11.

According to AF Form 469 dated 25 Oct 11, he was restricted from 
running or walking more than a half mile at maximal effort,  any 
duties requiring rapid or repetitive bending at the waist for 
maximal effort or repetitive bending of the forearms in the 
prone position.  The date of release from the restriction was 
15 Jan 12.   

He received a referral EPR for the period of 17 Nov 10 to 16 Nov 
11, for failure to achieve a passing score on two FAs and was 
reprimanded by his commander.  His EPR reflects that he was the 
Unit Program Fitness Monitor at the time.  

On 10 Dec 12, his wing commander recommended an ETP for 
reinstatement of his PSN to the grade of TSgt stating that  
while it was his opinion that the application of the referral 
EPR was correct due to the failed FA, the medical circumstances 
leading to his failure were grossly unjust and presented a 
unique and extreme case warranting an ETP for reinstatement of 
his PSN to the grade of TSgt.  

The applicant’s contested FA scores are as follows:


Date 
Cardio
AC
Push-
ups
Sit-
Ups
Composite 
Score
Rating
11/14/11  
13.47/
39.30
38.5/
13.5
44/
7.50
46/
7.50
67.80
Unsatisfactory
04/04/11
Exempt
38.00
14.40
42/
7.20
Exempt
72.00
Unsatisfactory  

According to his AF Forms 469 dated 15 Mar 11 and 25 Oct 11, he 
should have completed only the AC portion of the contested FAs.  

In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 36-2905, Air Force Fitness Program, 
dated 1 Jul 10, and Air Force Guidance Memorandum 2 (AFGM 2) 
dated 20 Dec 10, paragraph 2.1 and Attachment 14, a composite 
point total of 75 or greater is required to pass the FA with an 
overall satisfactory rating.  Per paragraph 2.10.3, the 
composite score equals the total component points achieved 
multiplied by 100 and divided by the total possible points.
________________________________________________________________
On 7 Jan 14, the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB) 
disapproved the applicant’s 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 evidence.  After a thorough review of the 
documentation provided by the applicant, there is insufficient 
evidence to support his claim.  He provided documentation 
reflecting that he had several appointments to seek attention 
for his sprained ankle, to include surgery.  DPSIM can assume 
there is a possibility this could have affected the two FAs in 
discussion; however, there was no medical evaluation/official 
statement from the Primary Care Manager (PCM) which indicated 
that these pre-existing medical issues precluded him from 
achieving a passing FA. 

In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, AFGM 2, 
dated 20 Dec 10, paragraph 4.2.2. “Providers will list physical 
limitations on the AF Form 469.  When physical limitations 
preclude the member from participating in fitness activities for 
greater than 30 days, the member will follow local policy to 
obtain an exercise prescription and determination of FA 
exemption.  Unless the member is given a composite exemption, 
they will continue to prepare for and be assessed on non-exempt 
components of the FA.”  

IAW AFI 36-2905, AFGM 2, dated 1 Jul 11, paragraph 4.2.2., he 
should have only tested on the components of the FA that he was 
cleared for by his PCM.  Instead, he tested on all components 
although he was not cleared to test on all components by his 
PCM.  

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

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant's request for 
removal of the referral EPR based on the aforementioned 
recommendation of DPSIM.  The applicant did file an appeal 
through the ERAB under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting 
Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports; however, due to the 
referral report being for a fitness failure reason, the 
applicant was advised to process the request through the Board.

DPSID contends that the evaluation was completed appropriately 
and within regulatory Air Force requirements.  It is a 
Noncommissioned Officer’s (NCO) responsibility to adhere to all 
Air Force standards to include fitness.  An evaluation report is 
considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the 
time it is rendered.  We contend that once a report is accepted 
for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants 
correction or removal from an individual’s record.  The burden 
of proof is on the applicant and he has not substantiated that 
the contested report was rendered unfairly based on knowledge 
available at the time.  

The applicant was on a waist only profile yet chose to test in 
all components resulting in the failure.  Although, after the 
fact, he believes the failure should be removed, the fact 
remains that he voluntarily tested in all categories and failed.  

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPSOE states the applicant was tentatively selected for 
promotion to the grade of TSgt during Cycle 11E6.  He received 
PSN 6329.0 which incremented on 1 Mar 12.  However, he became 
ineligible and his PSN was removed when he received a referral 
EPR.  He was subsequently selected for promotion to the grade of 
TSgt during Cycle 13E6 with a DOR of 1 Nov 13.  

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 25 Aug 14, the copies of the Air Force evaluations were 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit F).  As of this date, this office has not received a 
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 to warrant 
removing the contested FAs, referral EPR or to reinstate his PSN 
to the grade of TSgt.  We note that DPSIM states the applicant 
should have only tested on the components that he was cleared 
for by his PCM.  However, even if we were inclined to change the 
record to show he only tested on the components he was cleared 
for, given that his AC scores of 72 and 67.5 were below the 
composite point total of 75 he still would not have received an 
overall satisfactory rating.  While the ETP letter from his wing 
commander in support of his request is duly noted, we do not 
find this letter alone sufficient to grant the requested relief.  
Therefore, other than noted above, we agree with the opinions 
and recommendations of the Air Force OPR’s and adopt the 
rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the 
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has 
been the victim of an error or injustice.  Should the applicant 
provide medical evidence that reflects he should have been 
exempt from the AC portion of the test we may be willing to 
reconsider his requests.  In view of the above and in the 
absence of evidence that he was treated differently than others 
similarly situated we find no equitable basis to grant any of 
the relief sought in this application.  

________________________________________________________________

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-2013-02775 in Executive Session on 30 Sep 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

     , Panel Chair
     , Member
     , Member 

 
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-02775 was considered: 

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 May 13, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.         
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 29 May 14, w/atchs.  
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 1 Aug 14.
    Exhibit E.  E-mail, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 21 Aug 14.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Aug 14.