RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-03936

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Fitness Assessments (FA), dated 5 May and 23 Jul 13, be 
removed from his records.  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The heart rate monitor readings during the contested FAs are 
inaccurate.  A nurse from his unit accompanied him on 23 Jul 13 
and read the applicant’s heart rate at 145 beats per minute 
immediately following the Fitness Assessment Cell’s (FAC) 
reading of 156 beats per minute.  As for the 5 May 13 FA, 
because his heart rate (171 beats per minute) was identical to 
that of another member as they crossed the finish line together, 
the reading must be erroneous.  The applicant provided excerpts 
from the Polaris website entitled “abnormal heart rate readings 
during exercise” in support of these arguments.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserve in 
the grade of major (O-4). 

On 5 May 13, the applicant participated in the contested FA and 
failed to attain the minimum score for the cardio component   
(1-mile walk), which resulted in a composite score of 26.11, 
which constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

On 23 Jul 13, the applicant participated in the contested FA and 
failed to attain the minimum score for the cardio component   
(1-mile walk), which resulted in a composite score of 27.22, 
which constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

According to AFI 36-2905, AFGM 5, Airmen testing via the 1.0-
mile (1609 meters) walk are required to walk as quickly as 
possible, but not run, keeping at least one foot in contact with 
the ground at all times.  Any attempts to alter heart rate such 
as intentional slowing or stopping during the walk are 
violations of the test protocol and will cause the test to be 
terminated and result in test failure.  For the 1.0 mile walk, 
FACs will insert the member’s gender, age, weight, finishing 
heart rate, and total walk time in the FAC walk test spreadsheet 
to obtain the total walk time for entry into AFFMS.

On 31 Mar 14, the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB) 
disapproved the applicant’s request on the basis that the 
contested FAs were not shown to be in error and there was no 
evidence of faulty equipment.  Additionally, neither the 
applicant, nor his unit colleague, was certified to complete 
measurements and they cannot be validated; there was no evidence 
submitted that proved the FAC was in error. 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR) which is included at Exhibit B. 


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial due to lack of supporting 
documentation.  The applicant completed FAs on 5 May and 23 Jul 
13 and failed the 1-mile walk portion, resulting in overall 
unsatisfactory fitness levels.  The applicant provided a letter 
from his colleague corroborating the applicant’s contention that 
his heart rate was recorded at 145 beats per minute shortly 
after the FAC had recorded his pulse at 156 beats per minute.  
The applicant also provided some e-mail traffic from his unit 
fitness monitor attesting to his assertion that he had, on 
limited occasions, seen the heart rate monitors of two members 
in close proximity to each other report the same heart rate.  
According to AFI 36-2905, AFGM 5, paragraph 26, “if a member 
believes the administration of his/her FA or his/her FA score 
was in error or unjust, he/she may submit an application for 
correction of military records.”  There was no documentation 
provided which indicates the 1-mile walk was administered 
improperly. 

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


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 25 Apr 14 for review and comment within 30 days.  
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit C).

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.  The 
applicant contends that the heart rate monitors used by his unit 
during his 5 May 13 and 25 Jul 13 fitness assessments (FA) were 
somehow defective and caused him to unfairly attain overall 
unsatisfactory ratings.  After a thorough review of the evidence 
of record and the applicant’s complete submission, we are not 
convinced that corrective action is warranted.  While the 
applicant renders a variety of arguments intended undermine the 
functioning of the heart rate monitors used during the contested 
FAs, the only real evidence he has provided in support of his 
assertions is a supporting statement from a colleague who says 
he made an independent measurement of the applicant’s heart rate 
after the end of the 5 May 13 FA.  In this respect, we note the 
comments of the author of the supporting statement indicating 
that he measured the applicant’s heart rate at the conclusion of 
the contested FA as 145 beats per minute, when the heart rate 
monitor the applicant argues was faulty indicated his heart rate 
was 156 beats per minute.  However, we do not find this 
statement or the applicant’s arguments sufficient to conclude 
that he is the victim of an error or injustice.  While we do not 
doubt the veracity of the supporting statement, we do not 
believe it is sufficient for us to come to the inescapable 
conclusion that the equipment must have been faulty as the 
applicant argues.  In our view, it is much more likely that the 
negligible difference between the pulse rates measured by the 
device and the applicant’s colleague is attributable to the fact 
that the former was measured while the applicant was in motion, 
while the latter was measured while the applicant was at rest.  
As for the applicant’s assertion that the device also 
malfunctioned during his 25 Jul 13 FA because he was in close 
proximity to another member participating in the assessment, we 
do not find the applicant’s assertions or the documentation 
provided sufficient to conclude that the equipment during this 
contested FA was somehow faulty.  Therefore, in view of the 
above, we are not convinced that the contested FA results are 
inaccurate.  Therefore, we find no 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.


The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-03936 in Executive Session on 24 Sep 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Ms., Panel Chair
	Ms., Member
	Mr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Jul 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 3 Jan 14.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Apr 14.