RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05806

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  YES 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The Fitness Assessments (FA), dated 15 Nov 10, 27 Jan 11, 30 Apr 11, 6 Dec 11, and 24 Apr 12, be declared void and removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS).  

2.  The Referral Enlisted Performance Reports (EPR) rendered for the periods of 22 Mar 10 through 15 Dec 10, 16 Dec 10 through 15 Dec 11, and 16 Dec 11 through 21 May 12 be declared void and removed from his personnel record.  



APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He had an undiagnosed medical condition that precluded him from obtaining an overall satisfactory rating on the contested FAs.  Specifically, a medical evaluation board (MEB), along with his primary care manager (PCM) and licensed physical therapist determined he has Scoliosis, which contributed to his failure in the sit-up portion of his FAs.  Therefore, his failed FAs, and the three referral EPRs rendered as a result of the failed FAs are unjust and should be voided. 

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



STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of Staff Sergeant (E-5).

On 15 Nov 10, the applicant failed his FA, resulting in him being rendered a referral EPR on 16 Dec 10.  The applicant elected to not provide comments to the referral report.  

On 27 Jan 11, 30 Apr 11, and 6 Dec 11, the applicant failed his FAs.  As a result of the failed FAs he was rendered a referral EPR on 15 Dec 11.  The applicant did provide a rebuttal to his referral report, and his supervisor carefully considered his comments.  The comments identified abdominal cramping, hemorrhoids, stress, and anxiety as possible reasons for his failed FAs.  

On 24 Apr 12 the applicant failed his FA, resulting in him being rendered a referral EPR on 30 May 12.  The applicant elected to not provide comments to the referral report.  

The applicant’s last seven FA results are as follows:

Date 
Composite Score
Sit-ups
Rating
24 Jan 13
94.89
Exempt
Excellent
23 Jul 12
96.67
Exempt
Excellent
*24 Apr 12	
85.00
37/3.50
Unsatisfactory
*6 Dec 11
86.70
30/1.00
Unsatisfactory
*30 Apr 11
84.60
17/0.00
Unsatisfactory
*27 Jan 11
90.70
40/5.00
Unsatisfactory
*15 Nov 10
85.90
34/2.50
Unsatisfactory
*Annotates Contested FA 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.    



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the contested FAs indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  Having received and considered the FA appeal request on the applicant, under authority of AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB) has disapproved action because the applicant has provided no specific details pertaining to the purported medical condition.  Also, there was no letter from the commander invalidating the FA.  The applicant provided a VA Form 10-5345, Request For and Authorization to Release Medical Records or Health Information, requesting a “copy of hospital summary” and “copy of outpatient treatment notes” for “the purpose of correction of military records.”  No other evidence was provided to support the applicant's request.  

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

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the contested referral EPRs indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice regarding the applicant’s contested EPRs.  The applicant has not provided sufficient substantiating documentation or evidence to prove his assertions that the contested evaluations were rendered unfairly or unjustly.  Air Force policy is an EPR is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  To effectively challenge an evaluation, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain – not only for support, but also for clarification/explanation.  It has been determined that the EPR was accomplished in accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and procedures.  The applicant has not substantiated that the contested EPRs were rendered inaccurately and not in good faith by all evaluators based knowledge available at the time.  

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



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 27 Oct 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E).  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 with respect to the contested fitness assessments (FA).  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 AFPC/DPSIM and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  While the applicant contends that his medical condition precluded him from attaining passing scores on the contested fitness assessments, he has provided no documentary evidence whatsoever related to his purported medical conditions that would allow us to determine if there was a causal nexus between the medical condition and the applicant’s inability to attain a passing score on his FAs.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.  As for his requests to remove the contested referral enlisted performance reports (EPR), AFPC/DPSID reviewed this application and determined the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) is an available avenue of administrative relief the applicant has not first pursued.  In view of this, we find this aspect of the applicant’s request is not ripe for adjudication at this level, as there exists a subordinate level of appeal that has not first been depleted.  Therefore, in view of the above, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.



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-2013-05806 in Executive Session on 11 Dec 14 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Oct 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 14 Feb 14, 
	            w/atchs.	
Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated, 8 Oct 14.
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Oct 14.