RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03538

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Fitness Assessment (FA), dated 28 Feb 13, be removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS).  

2.  His referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 2 Apr 12 through 1 Apr 13, be removed from his record.

3.  He receive supplemental promotion consideration for the 2013 Technical Sergeant (TSgt/E-6) promotion cycle (13E6).  



APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  On 15 Feb 13, he was given a AF Form 422, Notification of Air Force Qualification Status, which incorrectly authorized him to complete push-ups and sit-ups during FA testing, resulting in failure of his 28 Feb 13 FA because he only completed 10 push-ups.  This occurred because he was stationed at Pope Army Air Field and had to work through the Army’s medical system.  The Army gives Air Force members who have a medical issue the Army version of a physical profile, and the Pope Clinic then transcribes the information from the hard copy Army profile onto an AF Form 422 for use during Air Force FAs.  Although he suffers from severe back pain, he could not produce a correct Army profile, so he was forced to take the 28 Feb 13 FA. 

2.  The AF process was not correctly administered.  During the push-up portion of the FA, the test administrator is required to count the correct number of push-ups aloud, but during his FA the numbers were not counted aloud.  

3.  As a result of the failed FA, he was unfairly furnished the contested referral EPR and, as a result, was denied promotion consideration during the 13E6 cycle. 


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



STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served in the Regular Air Force in the grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt) during the matter under review.

According to the documentation submitted by the applicant, on 19 Feb 13, he received an AF Form 422 which restricted his participation in the 1.5 mile run and the 1 mile walk during FAs, but authorized his participation in push-ups, sit-ups, and abdominal circumference (AC) measurement.  These restrictions expired on 16 Apr 13. 

On 28 Feb 13, the applicant failed his FA. 

According to the documentation submitted by the applicant, on 10 May 13, the applicant received an AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report, restricting him from completing push-ups, sit-ups, the 1.5 mile run, and the 1 mile walk during FAs, but still authorized his participation in the AC measurement.  These restrictions expired on 31 Aug 13.  (This AF Form 469 was dated 15 Feb 13, but signed on 10 May 13.)  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E.



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove his referral EPR from his record based upon AFPC/DPSIM’s recommendation to deny the applicant’s request to remove the contested FA.  To effectively challenge an evaluation, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain—not only for support, but for clarification/explanation.  An evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered; once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence warrants correction or removal from the individual’s record.  The applicant has not substantiated that the contested report was not rendered accurately and in good faith by all evaluators based upon knowledge available at the time.  Without supporting documentation, we can only conclude his FA failure was due to the applicant’s failure to properly prepare and maintain fitness standards.  Although the applicant may feel that this was an injustice, there were avenues to ensure that any medical issues were taken into consideration prior to the report close-out date, not only through his chain of command, but with the medical community.  Therefore, to change or void this evaluation would be an injustice to other Airmen who have consulted with the medical community and received the proper medical profiles regarding the fitness program or the Airmen have met the minimum FA requirements.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOE does not make a recommendation, but explains the impact of the referral EPR on the applicant’s promotion opportunity.  The applicant tested for cycle 13E6 on 15 Mar 13.  However, when he received his referral EPR, it rendered him ineligible for promotion in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Program, Table 1.1, Rule 22.  Therefore, his tests were not scored.  Should the AFBCMR direct removal of the contested FA and referral EPR, then the applicant would be granted supplemental promotion consideration.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the FA test score from the AFFMS due to lack of supporting evidence.  The applicant took an FA on 28 Feb 13, receiving a score of 50.00 (Unsatisfactory), failing the push-up and sit-up components of the FA.  The applicant provided an AF Form 469, dated 15 Feb 13, which expired on 21 Aug 13, stating the limitations for the applicant, which included the push-up component, sit-up component, and cardio component, and expired on 31 Aug 13; however, the original profile had been updated and the profile that was submitted was effective 10 May 13.  We can only assume the updated AF Form 469 went in effect on or after 10 May 13, since the original form was not provided.  The applicant then provided an updated AF Form 422, dated 19 Feb 13, stating restriction of only cardio component, which expired 16 Apr 13.  The applicant did not provide the Army version of the profile that was given to him, nor did he provide the original profile that should have been dated and signed by the Medical Provider on or about 15 Feb 13.  Based upon the evidence submitted, we can only assume the applicant should have tested on the AF Form 422 that was provided as it was the updated profile at the time of his FA which showed he was only exempt from cardio component.  

In accordance with AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program (dated 1 Jul 10), Air Force Guidance Memorandum 2.1 (dated 3 Jan 13), Paragraph 10, Part A, “If an Airman notifies the FAC of the presence of an illness/injury, the FAC staff (or UFPM) where no FAC exists) will not input the scores in AFMMS for the time period specified below.  For RegAF and AGR Airmen, the FAC (or UFPM where no FAC exists) will enter the FA result in AFFMS on the 6th day if the Commander does not invalidate test results or no response from the Commander is received within this timeframe.”  The applicant did not provide an invalidation memorandum from his Commander requesting the FA in question be removed from the AFFMS.  The applicant failed the push-up component of the FA, which was not updated as a restriction on his current AF Form 422, dated 19 Feb 13.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit E.



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 7 Oct 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an 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 (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  While the Board notes the applicant’s contention he should not have completed the push-up or sit-up portion of the 28 Feb 13 FA but could not obtain a correct medical profile from the Army, we believe documentation from the Air Force medical community or from the applicant’s leadership in support of his contention is required to establish an error or injustice for both the FA failure and the resulting referral EPR.  In addition, other than his own contentions, the applicant provided no documentation indicating that the FA in question was improperly administered.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.



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.


The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-03538 in Executive Session on 4 Nov 14 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Jul 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 12 Jun 14.
Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 9 Jul 14.
Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 5 Sep 14. 
Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Oct 14.