RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-04714

	XXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Fitness Assessments (FAs) dated 31 Jul 12, 26 Oct 12, 28 Dec 12, 19 Jun 13, and 22 Aug 13 be declared void and removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He had a pre-existing medical condition, i.e., foot pain, that was not been properly diagnosed until recently, which precluded him from successfully passing the cardio components (1.5 mile run) of the FAs, dated 26 Oct 12 and 19 Jun 13. Additionally, while his current medical provider recommended he participate in the 1-mile walk component, instead of the run, the stress of his three previous failures caused him to develop anxiety problems, resulting in him being prescribed “Lunesta” to help sleep.  However, during the 22 Aug 13 FA he had a panic attack which caused him to stop the FA and precluded him from passing.   

In support of his appeal, the applicant submits medical records dated back to Oct 2006 indicating he had pain in his foot, an AF Form 469 with his current FA limitations, and two letters from his medical providers validating his medical condition.  

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

________________________________________________________________



STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On the date the application was submitted the applicant was serving as a Staff Sergeant (E-5) in the Regular Air Force.

On 26 Oct 12, the applicant participated in a FA, attaining an overall composite score of 36.30, which constituted an “unsatisfactory” assessment.  The applicant was credited with the following component scores:  Cardio – 14:46/0.00 points, Abdominal Circumference – 34.50”/20.00 points, Push-ups – 38/6.30 points, Sit-ups – 61/10.00 points.

On 19 Jun 13, the applicant participated in a FA, attaining an overall composite score of 37.70, which constituted an “unsatisfactory” assessment.  The applicant was credited with the following component scores:  Cardio – 13:48/0.00 points, Abdominal Circumference – 35.00”/20.00 points, Push-ups – 45/7.70 points, Sit-ups – 58/10.00 points.

An AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report, issued on 28 Jun 13 and expiring on 28 Jun 14 exempts the applicant from the 1.5 mile run component of the FA.  He is cleared to test on the 
1-mile walk and all other components of the FA.   

A letter provided by the applicant and signed by his medical provider on 1 Jul 13 indicates that he had a medical condition which prevented him from passing the run component of the FA administered on 19 Jun 13.

On 22 Aug 13, the applicant participated in a FA, attaining an overall composite score of 50.00, which constituted an “unsatisfactory” assessment.  The applicant was credited with the following component scores:  Cardio – Exempt, Abdominal Circumference – 32.50”/20.00 points, Push-ups – 0/0.00 points, Sit-ups – 0/0.00 points.

A letter provided by the applicant and signed by his medical provider on 22 Aug 13 indicates that the applicant, “suffered a strong panic attack prior to and during his fitness test.  This led to a light headed feeling of dizziness and nausea making him incapable of performing the test.” 

On 20 Feb 14, a similar request was considered by the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB) who directed that his records be corrected to reflect that he was “Exempt” from the Cardio components of the FAs, dated 31 Jul 12 and 22 Aug 13. However, the FAAB found the error had no impact on the FAs dated 26 Oct 12, 28 Dec 12, and 19 Jun 13.






A list of the applicant’s last 10 FAs is as follows: 

Date 
Composite Score
Cardio
Rating
15 Nov 13
90.75
Exempt
Excellent
22 Aug 13
50.00
Exempt
Unsatisfactory
19 Jun 13
37.70
13:48/0.00
Unsatisfactory
*28 Dec 12
82.40
13:10/44.90
Satisfactory
26 Nov 12
36.30
14:46/0.00
Unsatisfactory
*31 Jul 12
Exempt
88.25
Satisfactory
27 Apr 11
79.50
13:26/42.30
Satisfactory
25 Nov 10
80.90
13:12/44.90
Satisfactory
17 Jun 10
77.00
13:38/34.00
Good
15 Apr 10
69.55
15:14/30.00
Poor
*Contested FA

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the FAs, dated 31 Jul 12, 26 Oct 12, 28 Dec 12, 19 Jun 13, and 22 Aug 13 due to the lack of supporting evidence.

DPSIM states, the AF Form 469 shows the applicant was exempt from the cardio component and not for the entire FA. He also provided a memorandum from the medical provider dated 
01 Jul 13, that validated he had a medical condition that precluded him from passing the 19 Jun 13 FA and then was issued an AF Form 469. However, the AF Form 469, dated 28 Jun 13 and expiring on 28 Jun 14, exempted him from only the cardio component. IAW AFI 36-2905, Table 4.3, the applicant's commander could have issued a component exemption with consult from the medical provider for the components. 

The applicant also provided a memorandum from the medical provider, dated 22 Aug 13, which states he had a panic attack, not a foot injury.  However, there was no commander's invalidation letter for this FA.  Further, this reason was not for a pre-existing medical condition. He did not provide any additional documentation, i.e., AF Form 469, from the medical provider that listed any limitations for previous fitness assessments.

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

________________________________________________________________



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He does not understand why the FAAB would exempt him for just two of the requested FAs and not the others.  His medical provider diagnosed his foot pains after all of his related FA failures and therefore should be used as the same rationale for both the 26 Oct 12 and 19 Jun 13 FAs.  In regard to the OPR’s concern about whether his commander supported his contentions, he submits an AF Form 3538E, Enlisted Retention Recommendation, signed by his commander.  The form was submitted to the Quality Force Retention Board (QFRB) due to a referral EPR that resulted from his FA failures.  According to the applicant his commander had the option to either recommend to “Consider” or “Not Retain” (“Retain” was not an option by written directive).  The form indicates the commander recommended “Consider” and states that he has had Physical Training (PT) difficulty, but has sought medical council and has overcome his PT issue. 

In reference to the 22 Aug 13 FA, while they exempted him from the run portion, his failure was due to his anxiety problems and still reflects “unsatisfactory”.  Therefore, he submits a 1 Jul 13 letter from his therapist, indicating that it is his opinion that his fears were directly related to his previous problems passing the FA and has since dealt with those fears resulting in a 90.5 percent on his 15 Nov 13 FA.  

A copy of the applicant’s rebuttal, with attachments, is 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 records confirming a medical condition, he has not met his burden of proving how this condition precluded him from successfully completing the contested FAs.  In regards to the FA dated 19 Jun 13, we recognize the letter from his medical provider, which states that a medical condition prevented him from passing.  Additionally, we note the other letters from his medical provider, which indicates that during his FA dated 22 Aug 13, “he suffered a strong panic attack prior to and during his fitness test;” however, in both instances a letter from the commander was not provided requesting the FAs be invalidated. In this respect, we recognize that in his response to the Air Force evaluation he contends the AF Form 3538E, Enlisted Retention Recommendation, recommending that he be “considered” for retention is proof the commander supports invalidation of the FAs.  However, while the commander does state the applicant “has sought medical council and has overcome his PT issue,” it in no way establishes the commander supports invalidating the previously failed FAs. Furthermore, the applicant contends that since the FAs dated 31 July 12 and 28 Dec 12 now reflect a passing score in AFFMS and the FAs dated 26 Oct 12 and 19 Jun 13 were administered as a result of these previously recorded failures, they should also be removed.  However, per AFI 36-2905, “It is every Airman’s responsibility to maintain the standards set forth in this AFI 365 days a year,” therefore the change in AFFMS does not exempt him from any FAs that may have been administered as a result of a previous failure.  Finally, the applicant’s submission does not contain an AF Form 422 exempting him from the contested FAs or the Fitness Screening Questionnaire he was required to complete prior to participating in the assessments.  Should the applicant provide such evidence, we would be willing to reconsider his request.  However, in view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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-2013-04714 in Executive Session on 24 Sep 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	XXXXXXXXX, Chair
	XXXXXXXXX, Member
	XXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  Two DD Forms 149, dated 15 Oct 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 11 Mar 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 May 14.
	Exhibit D.	Applicant’s Rebuttal w/e-mail, dated 15 Jul 14,
 		w/atchs.