RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-04469 

		COUNSEL:  BRUCE D. LENNERD

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His four Fitness Assessment (FA) failures be removed from 
his records.  Although the applicant requests relief for four FA 
failures, only three appear in his AFFMS record he provided as 
being unsatisfactory.  The applicant is now retired and his 
AFFMS record is not available for review (administratively 
resolved).

2.  The Enlisted Performance Reports (EPR), rendered for the 
periods 19 Feb 10 thru 18 Feb 11, and 19 Feb 11 through 
18 Feb 12, be declared void and replaced with the reports he 
provided.

3.  His promotion selection to the grade of master sergeant   
(E-7) for cycle 11E7 be reinstated with an appropriate date of 
rank (DOR). 

4.  His records be corrected to reflect he was retired in the 
grade of master sergeant (E-7), instead of technical sergeant 
(E-6).


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In Oct 2010, he began experiencing severe pain in his feet, 
ankles, knees, wrists, right elbow, and lower left portion of 
his back.  His condition was such that he was exempt from the 
cardio, sit-up, and push-up components of the FA.  As a result 
of his medical condition he was unable to maintain a regular 
exercise regimen; therefore, he gained weight, ultimately 
resulting in the contested FA failures as he could not achieve a 
passing score on the abdominal circumference (AC).  His medical 
provider should have exempted him from all components of the FA, 
but, because he did not, the applicant has suffered crushing 
disappointment. 

His referral EPRs were a result of the FA failures.  The 
applicant’s EPRs reveal that he was an airman with the highest 
possible ratings in the performance of his primary and 
additional duties, training requirements, and teamwork and 
followership.  The only place on either EPR where it is 
indicated he did not meet standards was in the fitness area.  
The applicant’s rater, additional rater, and reviewer have each 
signed substitute EPRs to replace the contested EPRs.  

His promotion was taken away due to no fault of his own; he and 
his family have sacrificed in support of his service.  A 
printout of the pertinent master sergeant selects list reflects 
the applicant’s 2011 selection for promotion to the grade of 
master sergeant with an applicable line number.  Based on that 
line number, he anticipated sewing on the stripe he earned 
1 Nov 11.  He hopes the Board can appreciate what it means to 
earn the stripes of a master sergeant after a career of 
dedicated service and sacrifice.

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 
technical sergeant (E-6) during the matter under review.

On 16 Nov 10, an AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Report, was 
initiating describing duty and mobility restrictions pertaining 
to the applicant.  The form was signed on 21 Dec 10 and was 
continuously extended, listing the applicant’s restrictions 
based on his medical condition.  

On 14 Dec 10, the applicant participated in the contested FA 
where he failed to attain the minimum score in the AC component 
of the FA and attained an overall composite score of 26.50, 
resulting in an unsatisfactory rating.  The applicant was exempt 
from the cardio, sit-up, and push-up components. 

On 8 Mar 11, the applicant’s rheumatologist indicated in a 
memorandum that the applicant was under his care for 
inflammatory arthritis that requires aggressive treatment 
options.  Additionally, he stated the applicant’s symptoms had 
been ongoing for months and very well may have affected his 
ability to perform at his maximum during his last FA. 

On 5 May 11, an email communiqué indicates that the applicant 
was denied the option to be exempted from the AC measurement of 
the FA, and a Medical Evaluation Board was recommended from the 
Medical Standards division within the Military Treatment 
Facility (MTF). 

On 26 May 11, the applicant’s rheumatologist indicated in a 
memorandum that he conducted a medical examination and the 
applicant had conditions that preclude him from achieving a 
passing score on the FA. 
On 28 Jun 11, the EPR, rendered for the period 19 Feb 10 through 
18 Feb 11, was referred to the applicant for a “does not meet” 
standards rating and comments in Block III, Fitness.

On 2 Sep 11, the applicant participated in the contested FA 
where he failed to attain the minimum score in the AC component 
and attained an overall composite score of 0.00, resulting in an 
unsatisfactory rating.  The applicant was exempt from the 
cardio, sit-up, and push-up components.

On 1 Dec 11, the applicant participated in the contested FA 
where he failed to attain the minimum score in the AC component 
and attained an overall composite score of 0.00, resulting in an 
unsatisfactory rating.  The applicant was exempt from the 
cardio, sit-up, and push-up components. 

On 2 Aug 12, the EPR, rendered for the period 19 Feb 11 through 
18 Feb 12, was referred to the applicant for a “does not meet” 
standards rating and comments in Block III, Fitness.

On 14 Dec 12, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) 
found the applicant unfit for continued military service and 
recommended he be permanently retired for physical disability 
with a combined compensable disability rating of 40 percent.

On 28 May 13, the applicant was relieved from active duty and 
permanently retired for physical disability.

On 14 Feb 14, the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB) 
directed that the applicant’s pertinent AFFMS records be updated 
to reflect the FAs dated 14 Dec 10, 2 Sep 11, and 1 Dec 11 be 
removed.  The FAAB also indicated AFPC Special Programs has 
attempted to update AFFMS; however, the AFFMS record is no 
longer available because the applicant has retired.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of 
primary responsibility (OPR) which are included at Exhibits B, 
C, and D. 


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIM indicates their office is unable to provide relief to 
the applicant due to the fact that he is now retired and his 
record is no longer available in AFFMS to remove the contested 
FAs.  He contends he had a medical condition that precluded him 
from achieving a passing FA scores since Oct 2010; he provided 
multiple AF Forms 469, and two memorandums from a medical 
provider stating that there are medical conditions that preclude 
him achieving a passing score.  

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

AFPC/DPSID recommends approval of the applicant’s request to 
substitute the contested EPRs.  Due to the applicant no longer 
being on active duty, he could not file an appeal through the 
Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB).  The applicant provided 
medical documentation supporting his contention that his 
condition precluded him from attaining passing scores on the 
contested FAs and also provided two substitute reports signed by 
all of the original evaluators with memorandums supporting his 
request to substitute the contested EPRs.  Therefore, as it 
appears the FA failures were the result of a condition for which 
he was permanently disability retired, these referral EPRs 
should be substituted with the revised versions he has provided 
in accordance with applicable Air Force policies and procedures.  

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

AFPC/DPSOE has no equity in the decision; however should the 
applicant’s request to substitute the referral EPRs with non-
referrals be granted, the applicant’s promotion to master 
sergeant for cycle 11E7 should be reinstated with an effective 
date of rank of 1  Nov 11.  The applicant was considered and 
tentatively selected for promotion to master sergeant during 
cycle 11E7.  He received promotion sequence number (PSN) 2767.0, 
which incremented 1 Nov 11; however, because he received a 
referral EPR, he became ineligible for promotion and his line 
number was removed in accordance with applicable policies and 
procedures.  

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


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant indicates that based on the three advisory 
opinions and FAAB decision, equity and justice require his 
requests to be approved.  He recommends that Board adopt each of 
recommendations and approve removal of the FA failures, 
substitute the referral EPRs with non-referral EPRs provided, 
reinstate his promotion to master sergeant with the date of rank 
effective 1 Nov 11, and his retirement grade retroactively 
corrected to the grade of master sergeant as per the applicable 
policies and procedures.  The applicant’s complete response, 
with attachments, is at Exhibit E.


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 that the applicant is the victim of an error or 
injustice.  The applicant contends that he had a medical 
condition that precluded him from attaining passing scores on 
the contested fitness assessments (FA) and, as a result, he was 
unjustly issued two referral enlisted performance reports (EPR) 
and deprived of his promotion to master sergeant (E-7).  After a 
thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s 
complete submission, we agree.  In this respect, we note that 
the Fitness Assessment Appeal Board (FAAB) has determined that 
the medical condition for which the applicant was ultimately 
permanently disability retired unfairly precluded him from 
attaining overall passing scores.  Therefore, in view of the 
fact that these FA failures were the sole basis for the 
contested EPRs to be referred to the applicant, we believe the 
contested referral EPRs should be replaced with the versions 
provided by the applicant, which have been signed by the 
original rating chain.  Furthermore, because the referral EPRs 
rendered the applicant ineligible for promotion, we believe it 
is also appropriate to restore the applicant’s promotion to the 
grade of master sergeant (E-7), effective 1 Nov 11, and correct 
his records to reflect he retired in said grade.  Therefore, 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 the APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

	a.  The Enlisted Performance Reports (EPR), rendered for 
the periods 19 Feb 10 thru 18 Feb 11 and 19 Feb 11 through 
18 Feb 12, be declared void and replaced with the reports 
provided.

	b.  He was promoted to the grade of master sergeant (E-7), 
effective and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Nov 11. 

	c.  His records be corrected to reflect that on 29 May 13, 
he was permanently retired for physical disability in the grade 
of master sergeant (E-7), instead of technical sergeant (E-6).


The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-04469 in Executive Session on 24 Sep 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Ms.  , Panel Chair
	Ms.  , Member
	Mr.  , Member
All members voted to correct the records as recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-04469 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Sep 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIMC, dated 23 Jan 14, w/atch.
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 11 Apr 14.
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 30 Apr 14.
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 May 14.
Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 16 Jun 14.