RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03388

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Fitness Assessment (FA) dated 4 Jun 13 be removed from the 
Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS).


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Fitness Assessment Cell (FAC) failed to locate the “right 
iliac crest” in accordance with the governing instructions 
resulting in an AC measurement of 39.5". After completing his 
FA, he requested his Unit Fitness Program Manager (UFPM) -re-
accomplish an AC measurement.  Within 4-hours of the FAC 
measurement, his UFPM measured his AC at 38.75” that was .75” 
smaller than the FAC measurement and was within in passing 
parameters.  Assuming both individuals measured his AC IAW the 
AFI, there is no possible way for a .75” variance within a 4-
hour window.  Note, the UFPM measurement did not round down to 
the nearest ½ inch as stated in the AFI that would have 
resulted in a 1-inch variance.  Considering the possibility 
one individual measured incorrectly, the variance in 
measurements itself puts into question the accuracy of the AC 
measurement and a retest/re-measurement should have been 
allowed.  

The 786 FSS/CC non-concurred with his request to remove the FA 
score under administrative grounds stating, “the re-measurement 
is invalid because the member who did it is not a member of the 
FAC and was not performing the re-measurement in the capacity 
of a FAC augmentee.”  During a phone conversation, the 786 
FSS/FSO reiterated the above decision and explained if a 
question of test validity ever arises, they “will always err on 
the side of the FAC.”  The applicant asked if he had requested a re-
measurement on the spot, could that have been accomplished.  The 
FSO’s responded by stating, “it is up to the FAC representative 
...they do not have to comply with that request, they have 
final say in the results.”  In fact, 36-2905 item 31 states, 
“Airmen only have one opportunity to complete each of the FA 
components per FA.”

The 786 FSS responses are of considerable concern to him.  
First, there is no immediate process to raise concerns of 
potential errors during the testing process.  Lacking other 
options, he went to his unit Commander and UFPM for assistance.  
UFPMs are trained to administer the entire FA and could confirm 
either his concerns or the FACs results.  These trained 
personnel, regardless if they are on duty supporting the FAC or 
not, should be included in a checks-and-balance process that 
currently does not exist. . Second, the 786 FSS leadership policy 
to “always err on the side of the FAC;” this policy is 
essentially stating the FAC's airman and civilians are 
infallible.  Decisions or errors that have potential career 
ending impacts should not be left unquestioned without any manner 
of checks-and-balances.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in 
the grade of lieutenant colonel.

The applicant’s last five FA scores are as follows:

	DATE	RESULT

	 3 Oct 13	SATISFACTORY
*	 4 Jun 13	UNSATISFACTORY
	23 Oct 12	SATISFACTORY
	14 Feb 12	SATISFACTORY
	16 Nov 11	SATISFACTORY

* Contested FA test.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit B.    


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial.  After a thorough review of the 
documentation provided by the applicant, there is insufficient 
evidence to support the applicant’s claim.  IAW AFI 36-
2905_AFGM5, dated 03 Jan 13, para 7d “The tester will measure 
the circumference three times and record each measurement 
rounding down to the nearest ½ inch.  If any of the measures 
differ by more than one inch from the other two, the tester 
will take an additional measurement.  The tester will add the 
three closest measurements, divide by three, and round down to 
the nearest ½ inch. The tester will record this value as the AC 
measurement.”  The applicant did not provide his fitness score 
sheet nor did he provide documentation from the FAC 
acknowledging the error and an invalidation memorandum from the 
Unit Commander indicating his/her decision to invalidate the FA.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM, with attachment, evaluation 
is at Exhibit B.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 20 Jun 14 for review and comment within 30 days.  
As of this date, no response has been received by this office.


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted 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 warranting 
partial relief.   While we note the applicant's stated request 
to have the entire FA removed, we believe the appropriate 
measure of relief is to "exempt" the abdominal circumference 
(AC) component for the FA dated 4 Jun 13.  The Board notes the 
Air Force office of primary responsibility recommendation to 
deny, however, we believe the applicant has raised reasonable 
doubt regarding the accuracy of the contested fitness 
assessment.  In this respect, we note the abdominal 
circumference (AC) score of the contested assessment represents 
a significant regression when compared to the score received 
four hours later.  Specifically, his AC was measured .75 of an 
inch less four hours later than the first measurement.  While we 
note the applicant did not provide the documentation from the 
FAC acknowledging the error, we do note the Unit Commander's 
concurrence that an error appeared to have occurred and that he 
concurred with accepting the second measurement.  We also find 
that the applicant's Unit Fitness Program Manager (UFPM) acted 
in the capacity of an augmentee for the Fitness Assessment Cell.  
Consequently, the applicant’s overall composite score will be 
reflected as 91.38, resulting in an excellent fitness level.  
Therefore, in order to preclude the possibility of an injustice 
to the applicant, we recommend his record be corrected as 
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 
abdominal circumference (AC) component of the Fitness 
Assessment, dated 3 June 2013, reflect “exempt” in the Air Force 
Fitness Management System.  


The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-03388 in Executive Session on 16 Oct 2014 under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

All members voted to correct the records as recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence for Docket Number AFBCMR BC-2013-
03388 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Jul 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 27 May 13, 
	            w/atchs.	
	Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jun 13.