RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02985
		
	XXXXXXX		COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Fitness Assessment (FA) dated 23 May 13 be invalidated.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested FA was improperly administered and was in error 
due to malfunctioning heart rate monitor (HRM).  She states it 
constantly reset during her 1-mile walk and read random numbers 
through the duration of the walk.  Prior to the test, she states 
she repeatedly asked for a new HRM, but her request was denied.  
While waiting for the test to begin, her HRM continued to beep 
and read 211 and continued to beep and read random numbers from 
99-211 during her walk.  When crossing the finish line, she 
states it read 157, read 211 while waiting to get it recorded, 
and then read 173, which was recorded. She questioned two male 
Fitness Assessment Cell (FAC) monitors and one female FAC 
monitor at the conclusion of the test and was told the HRM could 
fluctuate if the watch gets too close to the monitor.  The test 
monitor emailed her with instructions on how to get test removed 
from record. 

In support of her request, applicant provided her fitness score 
sheet, a memorandum for record from applicant and a memorandum 
from a witness.   

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force on 
active duty in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5). 

The applicant took a Fitness Assessment (FA) on 23 May 13, with 
a composite score of 32.00, unsatisfactory fitness level. The 
applicant completed the 1.0 mile walk in 14 minutes and 34 
seconds with a recorded heart rate of 173 and a calculated V02 
of 31.  The applicant’s VO2   max value of ? 31 was exceeded, 
rendering the applicant’s score unsatisfactory.  Had the 
applicant’s heart rate been taken at 157 as she states it was 
when she crossed the finish line, her max V02 would have been 
calculated at 34, which would have met the criteria for a 
satisfactory score.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial due to the lack of supporting 
evidence.  After a thorough review of the documentation provided 
by the applicant, there is insufficient evidence to support the 
claim. She has not provided documentation from the FAC 
validating her claim; also, she has not provided documentation 
from the Unit Commander indicating his/her decision to 
invalidate the FA.

The AFPC/DPSIM complete evaluation, with attachments is at 
Exhibit B.  

____________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

She visited the FAC and was unable to obtain any new information 
due to personnel changeovers.  She filed a complaint with the 
11th Wing Inspector General and was informed by the IG that there 
is no existing guidance/procedures requiring labeling, routine 
testing, or swapping out for the HRMs.  She was also informed 
the AFI was being re-written and HRMs would no longer be used.  
In support of these findings, she submitted a letter from the 
11th WG/IG dated 18 Jul 2013, an email dated 23 May 13 from the 
FA monitor, and an email dated 11 Jun 13 from the Health and 
Wellness Center.  

Additionally, in a letter dated 2 Apr 14, she claims the FAC 
violated procedures annotated in the manual of operations for 
the HRM.  She contends the FAC did not take action to ensure 
there was no one within three feet of her heart rate transmitter 
and that the process used to clean the HRM was improper. Either 
of these errors could have caused the HRM to malfunction 
according to the manufacturer.  In further support of her claim, 
she submits an email dated 31 Mar 13 from the manufacturer, a 
copy of the Polar FT1/FT2 User Manual, and Maintenance Tips 
printed from the manufacturer’s website dated 2 Apr 14.

The applicant’s complete responses, with attachments, are at 
Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

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 provided medical documentation indicating a 
medical condition existed at the time of the contested FA, 
he/she has not met his/her burden of proving it should be 
removed from the AFFMS. In this respect, we note the letter from 
the applicant’s medical provider indicates he had a medical 
condition but no letter of support from the commander was 
provided requesting the FA be invalidated.  Should the applicant 
provide such evidence, we would be willing to reconsider this 
request.  However, in view of the above and in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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.

________________________________________________________________

Due to the unavailability of XXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXXXXXX has 
signed as Acting Panel Chair.  The following members of the 
Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-02985 in Executive 
Session on 21 May 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

		, Chair
		, Member
		, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2013-02985:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 5 Jun 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 17 Dec 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Feb 14.
	Exhibit D.	Letters, Applicant, dated 27 Mar & 2 Apr 14,
		w/atchs.



				Acting Panel Chair