RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	 DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02880
			 COUNSEL:  NONE
	   		 HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her Fitness Assessment (FA) dated 27 Jan 11 be void and 
removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS).  
(Administratively Corrected) 

2.  Her Fitness Assessment (FA) dated 13 May 11 be void and 
removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS).  

3.  Her referral EPR for the period of 1 Apr 10 through 16 Jun 
11 be void and removed from her records.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her hysterectomy, chronic thyroid disease and age attributed to 
her waist circumference and failed FAs.  

She should have been given at least 6 months plus 42 days 
starting on or about 17 Dec 11 for acclimation and recovery when 
her convalescent leave ended.      

In support of her requests, she provides copies of her Physical 
Training Leader (PTL) certificate, AF Form 911, Enlisted 
Performance Report (MSgt thru CMSgt); AF Form 988, Leave 
Request/Authorization; e-mail communique, AF Form 469, Duty 
Limiting Condition Report; and medical information.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is on active duty in the grade of Chief Master 
Sergeant (CMSgt, E-9) with date of separation of 20 Jul 18.  

She received a referral EPR for the period ending 16 Jun 11 with 
an overall rating of “4” for not meeting fitness standards. 

In a letter dated 7 Apr 14, the applicant’s Primary Care Manager 
(PCM) stated that it was evident that the Synthroid regimen was 
being adjusted when the applicant failed her now one remaining 
FA failure on the AC measure.  The PCM also stated “Her current 
thyroid replacement regimen is considerably higher at 0.165 mg. 
She is being monitored closely by her Endocrinologist who is 
working with her to keep within the AF standards.  These are 
extenuating justifications to seek reversal of a single FA 
failure that highlights her on-going struggle to maintain AF AC 
measure standards.  I see it as no mark of deficiency that she 
has passed all her FA tests since the single FA failure now left 
in her records, but in this current competitive environment, she 
is stating that it matters.  Perhaps, it is unfair to have this 
failure hang over her future career options, so I have prepared 
this memo to the unit CC per her request.”

In a letter dated 9 Apr 14, the applicant’s commander concurred 
with the PCM’s recommendation to invalidate her 13 May 13 [sic] 
FA test.  He also stated the referral Enlisted Performance 
Report was also invalid. 

The applicant’s most recent FA results are as follows:

Date 
Composite Score
Rating
29 Mar 2013
 90.8
Excellent
 5 Dec 2012
 Exempt
Exempt
18 May 2012
 85.2
Satisfactory
 4 Nov 2011
 88.9
Satisfactory 
(Exempt: push-ups)
13 May 2011
 70.3
Unsatisfactory
26 Jan 2010 
 Exempt
Exempt
18 Aug 2009
 Exempt
Exempt

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove  
the 13 May 11 FA due to a lack of supporting evidence. 

The complete FAAB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.  

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request for 
removal of her referral EPR for the period through 16 Jun 11.  
Based on the recommendation of DPSIM and the 13 May 11 FA 
failure remaining, the contested report should not be removed.  
Furthermore, the applicant did not file an appeal through the 
Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. 
The applicant has not provided sufficient substantiating 
documentation or evidence to prove her assertions that the 
contested evaluation was rendered unfairly or unjustly.  Air 
Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written 
when it becomes a matter of record.  To effectively challenge an 
evaluation, it is necessary to hear from all members of the 
rating chain, not only for support but also for clarification 
and explanation.  The applicant has failed to provide any 
information from the rating officials on the contested report.  
DPSID contends the report was accomplished In Accordance With 
(IAW) all applicable policies and procedures.   

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Her Primary Care Manager (PCM) discounted her concerns she was 
not medically improved to pass her FA, denied her Abdominal 
Circumference (AC) measurement was medically related, 
disapproved her request for a second opinion and recommended she 
eat smarter and exercise more.

She requested her commander at the time consider her rebuttal to 
the EPR but he declined.  He then created a hostile work 
environment, issued her a Record of Individual Counseling (RIC), 
denied her request for a 6 month Date Eligible for Return from 
Overseas (DEROS) extension for join spouse assignment and 
initiated a Commander Directed Investigation (CDI).  She filed 
an Inspector General (IG) complaint and a Constituent Service 
form with the state of Mississippi.  Despite these efforts, she 
did not get assistance or support.

Upon arrival at Eglin AFB, FL she was able to get her medical 
records reviewed and provides letters of support from her PCM 
and unit commander.  Her PCM states he believes her Synthroid 
regimen was being adjusted when she failed the FA on the AC 
measurement and her current thyroid replacement regimen is 
considerably higher.  These extenuating issues are reasons to 
seek reversal of a single FA failure that highlights her on-
going struggle to maintain AC standards and perhaps it is unfair 
to have this failure hang over her future career options.  

In a letter dated 9 Apr 14, her commander concurred with the 
recommendation of her PCM to invalidate the 13 May 13 [sic] FA 
test which makes the referral report invalid.

In further support of her requests, the applicant provides a 
personal statement, letters of support from her PCM and unit 
commander, AF IMT 174, Record of Individual Counseling; 
Constituent Service Form, AF Form 102, Inspector General 
Personal and Fraud, Waste and Abuse Complaint Registration; and 
various other documents associated with her requests.

Her complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.  

________________________________________________________________


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has substantially complied with the 
requirement to exhaust all remedies provided by existing law or 
regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We note the 
Air Force Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) recommends 
denial due to a lack of supporting evidence.  However, after 
carefully reviewing the additional documentation from her PCM 
and commander, we disagree.  In this respect, we note the 
applicant provides a letter dated 7 Apr 14, from her PCM stating 
that it was evident that the Synthroid regimen was being 
adjusted when the applicant failed the contested FA and stated 
there were extenuating circumstances to warrant reversal of the 
FA failure.  Subsequently, on 9 Apr 14, the applicant’s 
commander concurred with the PCM’s recommendation to invalidate 
the 13 May 13 [sic] FA test and also recommended the contested 
EPR be invalidated.  We agree that the applicant’s 13 May 11 FA 
should be invalidated.  In regard to the contested EPR, the 
evidence presented in this case is sufficient to prove her 
assertions that the evaluation was rendered unfairly or unjustly 
and should be declared void and removed from the records.  
Although the applicant did not file an appeal through the ERAB, 
we find it extremely likely the ERAB would remove the contested 
EPR, if the FA’s that resulted in the referral EPR are also 
removed.  In the unlikely event the ERAB declined to remove the 
referral EPR, the applicant could again reapply to the AFBCMR.  
Therefore, in the interest of administrative economy and 
fairness to the applicant, we also recommend removal of the 
contested EPR.  Accordingly, in addition to the administrative 
correction to remove the 27 Jan 11 FA, we recommend the 
applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that:
 
     a. The Fitness Assessment dated 13 May 11 be declared void 
and removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System.        

     b. The Air Force Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report 
(MSgt thru CMSgt), rendered for the period of 1 Apr 10 through 
16 Jun 11 be declared void and removed from her records.         

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-
2013-02880 in Executive Session on 26 Jun and 18 Jul 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

     , Panel Chair
     , Member
     , Member

All members voted to correct the records as recommended.  The 
following documentation in Docket Number-BC-2013-02880 was 
considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Jun 13, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, 30 Dec 13, w/atchs.  
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 5 May 14. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 May 14.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Jun 14, w/atchs.