RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-05761
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. Her Fitness Assessment (FA) dated 6 Jun 13 be void and removed
from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS).
2. Her referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period
ending 6 Jun 13 be void and removed from her records.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was not allowed 42 days for reconditioning prior to testing.
The Fitness Assessment Cell (FAC) did not have the required waiver
letter from her commander as needed for the test.
The score was entered into AFFMS and she received a referral EPR.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered active duty on 9 Oct 96. Her current Date
of Separation (DOS) is 6 Oct 16.
In a previous case, AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-02408 dated
13 May 13, the applicant requested her 10 May 13 failed FA be
removed from the AFFMS as she did not receive 42 days for
reconditioning. Under the provisions of AFI 36-2603, Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records, the corrective action
was resolved administratively by AFPC/DPSIM and the contested FA
was removed from the AFFMS.
According to an AF Form 422, Notification of Air Force Members
Qualification Status, dated 27 Feb 13, the applicant was on a FA
profile and was only required to complete the abdominal
circumference and sit-up components of the FA for the period of
28 Jan to 28 Apr 13.
According to an AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report, dated
1 May 13, she was restricted from running/walking greater than a
half mile, no repetitive bending at the waist and no push-ups or
sit-ups. The duty restriction was through 1 Jun 13.
According to an AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru
TSgt), for the period ending 6 Jun 13 she received a referral EPR.
The specific reason for the referral EPR was that she failed to
maintain physical fitness standards.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicants request to remove
the contested FA from the AFFMS. The applicant has not exhausted
all available avenues of administrative relief prior to seeking
correction of her military records. In Accordance With (IAW) AFI
36-2905, Fitness Program, dated 21 Oct 13, any military member can
appeal their FA through a wing-level appeals board and then
through the AFPC Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB) within
two years of discovering the error/injustice. The process of
correcting an FA begins at the wing level. The applicant needs to
obtain guidance from the Unit Fitness Program Manager (UFPM) on
processing a request through the wing commander and the FAAB.
The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit B.
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicants request to remove
the referral EPR. The applicant did not file an appeal through
the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of
AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems.
The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 17 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 not 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. In this respect,
we note this Board is the highest administrative level of appeal
within the Air Force. As such, an applicant must first exhaust
all available avenues of administrative relief provided by
existing law or regulations prior to seeking relief before this
Board, as required by the governing Air Force Instruction. The
Air Force offices of primary responsibility have reviewed this
application and indicated there are available avenues of
administrative relief the applicant has not first pursued. In
view of this, we find this application is not ripe for
adjudication at this level, as there are subordinate levels of
appeal that have not first been depleted. Therefore, in view of
the above, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that she has not exhausted all available
avenues of administrative relief prior to submitting her
application to the BCMR; and the application will only be
reconsidered upon exhausting all subordinate avenues of
administrative relief.
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2013-05761 in Executive Session on 9 Dec 14 under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Dec 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 15 Jan 14.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 8 Oct 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Oct 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00530
On 31 Jan 13, the applicant participated in one of the contested FAs where he attained an overall composite score of 33.50 points, which constituted an unsatisfactory rating AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDE recommends denial indicating the applicant has not exhausted all available avenues of administrative relief prior to seeking correction of his military record. If the administrative appeal is not successful, the applicant may resubmit the DD Form 149, Application for Correction of...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00804
The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. The DPSID complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 31 January 2014, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit E). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01534
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends updating the push-up component of the applicants fitness assessment to reflect exempt in AFFMS; which would change her overall composite score to 88.33 (Satisfactory). The complete DPSIM evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSID recommends approval of the applicants request to remove her contested EPR. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04096
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends approval of the applicants request to remove the 21 Oct 10 and 21 Dec 10 FAs from her records. Based on the documentation provided by the applicant, it is determined that the applicant was pregnant at the time the FAs were administered on 21 Oct...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02880
In a letter dated 7 Apr 14, the applicants Primary Care Manager (PCM) stated that it was evident that the Synthroid regimen was being adjusted when the applicant failed her now one remaining FA failure on the AC measure. The complete FAAB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicants request for removal of her referral EPR for the period through 16 Jun 11. In this respect, we note the applicant provides a letter dated 7 Apr 14, from her PCM...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02568
On 16 May 13, his medical provider indorsed a letter dated 29 Apr 13 stating the applicant was diagnosed with iron deficient anemia in 2011 and then again in 2012 but it was never followed up. The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports; because he is no longer on active duty. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02523
In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a Medical Determination Letter, signed by his medical provider and indicating he had a condition that precluded him from passing the FAs dated 4 Jun 12 and 23 Aug 12 and a commander invalidation memorandum, requesting that the FA dated 30 May 13 be removed. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicants request for the removal of the contested FAs due to the applicant not exhausting all administrative remedies. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03249
The FAAB removed the duplicate FA, dated 21 Jan 07 from the AFFMS but found insufficient evidence to warrant removal of the FAs, dated 15 Jul 12 and 10 Feb 13, and denied this portion of the request. The applicants last nine FA results are as follows: Date Days Since Last Test Composite Score Rating 9 Feb 14 62 46.90 Unsatisfactory 8 Dec 13 146 72.80 Unsatisfactory 14 Jul 13 69 7.50 Unsatisfactory 5 May 13 83 67.90 Unsatisfactory *10 Feb 13 27 46.90 Unsatisfactory 13 Jan...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02775
________________________________________________________________ On 7 Jan 14, the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB) disapproved the applicants request for removal of his failed FAs from the AFFMS stating that he should have tested within the limits of his profile. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the request for removal of the failed FAs dated 4 Apr 11 and 14 Nov 11 due to the lack of supporting...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04301
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicants request to have her 17 October 2011 FA removed from AFFMS. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 May 2013 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit...