AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00021 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
    
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
1.  The  Fitness  Assessments  (FA)  dated  18  Feb  2010  and  30  Jun 
2010,  be  removed  from  the  Air  Force  Fitness  Management  System 
(AFFMS). 
 
2.  His referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for 
the period 24 Dec 2008 through 21 Feb 2010, be declared void and 
removed from his records. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
On 19 Feb 2012, he was ordered to report to an Air Force Base in 
Colorado to take his FA.  At the time he was on a Temporary Duty 
(TDY)  assignment  in  the  United  States  from  Hungary,  which  is 
480 feet above sea level.  The testing facility for his FA was 
6,187  feet  above  sea  level.    He  was  not  given  the  required 
amount  of  time  (42  days)  to  acclimate  to  this  new  altitude 
before  being  tested  in  accordance  with  AFI  10-248,  Fitness 
Program, which was the contributing factor in his FA failure. 
 
In  a  10  May  2011  memorandum,  the  Unit  Fitness  Program  Manager 
(UPFM) stated that the running course at Hungary had not been in 
compliance with AFI 36-2905, Air Force Fitness Program, from Nov 
2008 through 18 Apr 2011. 
 
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 technical sergeant (TSgt, E-6). 
 
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force at Exhibits C, D, E, and G. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSIM  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s  request  to 
remove  his  19  Feb  2010  FA  from  the  AFFMS.    DPSIM  states  the 
applicant is requesting his FA dated 19 Feb 2010 be removed from 
the AFFMS.  However, the AFFMS only reflects a 18 Feb 2010 FA.  
On 18 Feb 2010, the applicant tested on all four components and 
did not meet the minimum requirement for the cardio component of 
the FA. 
 
He  previously  tested  on  21  Nov  2008,  and  received  a  composite 
score of “good.”  He has no other FAs in the AFFMS from 21 Nov 
2008 to 18 Feb 2010.  On 9 Feb 2010, his supervisor advised him 
if he did not test by 22 Feb 2010, he would not be current and 
he would receive a referral EPR. 
 
Per AFI 36-2905, airmen are responsible for maintaining currency 
standards.  Specifically, each airman is responsible for knowing 
the  block  of  time  which  his  FA  is  required  to  remain  current.  
If a FA has not been scheduled in the period required to remain 
current,  the  member  must  notify  the  designated  Fitness 
Assessment  Cell  (FAC)  representative,  UFPM,  or  superior 
authority, in writing (includes e-mail) of the need to schedule 
the  FA  and  request  that  it  be  scheduled  within  the  required 
testing window.  It is ultimately the member's responsibility to 
ensure that his FA is scheduled.  Failing to remain current as 
well as failing to attain a passing score on the applicable FA 
before  the  end  of  the  performance  report  reporting  period  will 
result  in  a  "Does  Not  Meet  Standards"  rating  on  the  member's 
performance  report  if,  as  of  the  closeout  date  of  the 
performance report, currency or a passing score is not obtained.  
Members  must  also  monitor  their  FA  exemptions,  schedule  any 
necessary medical examinations, and initiate FA arrangements in 
a timely manner. 
 
The complete DPSIM evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. 
 
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request that his 
EPR  rendered  for  the  period  of  24  Dec  2008  through  21  Feb 
2010 be  removed  from  his  records.    DPSID  states  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. 
 
Prior  to  his  TDY  to  Peterson  AFB,  he  was  already  in  a  non- 
current  status on his FA, with  an annual  EPR soon to  closeout.  
The applicant passed a FA on 21 Nov 2008.  He was due to perform 
the  next  FA  by  Nov  2009;  however,  he  went  into  a  non-current 
status as of the end of that month  since he  did not  test.    He 
remained in non-current status for an additional two months until 
he departed for TDY to Colorado on 15 Jan 2010.    It was finally 
during  this  49  day  TDY  that  he  elected  to  take  the  FA on  the 
advice  of  his  rater,  and  subsequently  failed  the  FA.    DPSID 
concludes  that  it  was  the  applicant's  lack  of  attention  in 
remaining current  on his fitness testing within the appropriate 
timeframe, not any inability to pass a short-notice fitness test 
 

2

in a TDY location with elevation issues that caused the contested 
EPR to be referred. 
 
In  an  email  provided  in  his  case,  the  rater  clearly  does  not 
order  the applicant to take his FA;  on the contrary,  the rater 
and commander appeared to be helping the applicant  by suggesting 
that  he  try  and  take  the  FA  while  TDY,  despite  the  elevation 
issues  involved  with  the testing  location,  in order to  salvage 
him  from  receiving  the  referral  report.    It  appears  that  the 
rater and commander attempted to assist the applicant in avoiding 
this referral EPR for non-currency by affording the applicant an 
extra 59 days to obtain a passing FA score via a requested and 
approved 59 day extension.  Nevertheless, it was ultimately the 
applicant's responsibility to not only be ready to successfully 
pass a required FA, but also to ensure that the required FA was 
completed in the required timeframe. 
 
It  appears  the  applicant  did  not  adequately  plan  to  take  the 
required  FA  at  his  home  station  within  the  contested  rating 
period,  and  that  his  own  voluntary  decision  to  take  the  FA  at 
the TDY location at the very end of the rating period resulted 
in the fitness failure that caused the referral EPR. 
 
The complete DPSID evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D. 
 
AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to have 
his FA dated 18 Feb 2010, removed from the AFFMS and defers to 
DPSID’s recommendation.  Based on their assessment, DPSID found 
the referral report to be accurate as written, and recommends it 
not be removed. 
 
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
On  18  May  2012,  copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were 
forwarded  to  the  applicant  for  review  and  comment  within 
30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this 
office (Exhibit F). 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
On  24  Jul  2012,  a  memorandum  was  sent  to  the  applicant 
requesting  additional  documentation.    After  reviewing  the 
information,  AFPC/DPSIM  provided  a  revised  advisory,  dated 
26 Oct 2012 and recommended partial approval of the applicant’s 
request to have his FA dated 18 Feb 2010 removed from the AFFMS.  
DPSIM states in accordance with AFI 36-2905, "All personnel who 
are deployed or TDY for greater than 30 consecutive days will be 
given  a  42 day  acclimatization  period  starting  the  date  they 
arrive back at home station prior to taking their FA."  Since he 
was TDY from 15 Jan 2010 through 4 Mar 2010, with an estimated 
 

3

tour length of 42 days, DPSIM now recommends his FA dated 18 Feb 
2010 be removed from the AFFMS. 
 
Regarding  his  FA  dated  30  Jun  2010,  DPSIM  recommends  partial 
approval.    DPSIM  states  the  documentation  provided  by  the 
applicant  indicates  the  incorrect  length  of  running  course  was 
used.    Because  the  cardio  portion  was  the  only  component 
impacted by this error, DPSIM recommends the cardio component be 
updated  to  reflect  "Exempt"  in  the  AFFMS.    Updating  the  cardio 
component  to  "Exempt"  will  still  result  in  an  unsatisfactory 
score of 72. 
 
The complete DPSIM evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit G. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
He  is  fully  aware  his  FA  was  not  current  prior  to  being  sent 
TDY;  however,  it  should  be  made  very  clear  that  this  was 
entirely due to the situation on the ground at his home station.   
There was only one certified Physical Training Leader (PTL) and 
an  outdoor  running  course.    He  made  numerous  appointments  and 
attempts to schedule his FA, however, each was cancelled due to 
weather  or  scheduling  conflicts  encountered  by  the  PTL,  not 
himself. 
 
With respect to his supervisor’s email regarding his FA, he does 
recognize  that  the  supervisor  does  not  say  the  actual  words  "I 
order you," however; he asserts this email was clearly directive 
in nature.  He advised his supervisor that he was not eligible 
to take the test based on guidance clearly described in AFI 36-
2905,  AFGM4  which  was  the  governing  AFI  at  the  time  of  the 
incident.  This AFI gave the commander options to exempt members 
in  a  TDY  status.    However,  instead  of  exempting  him,  it  was 
instead  used  to  coerce  him  into  short  notice  testing  at 
6,187 feet above sea level without the proper time to acclimate.  
 
The  advisory  mentions  previous  and  subsequent  FAs  that  he  has 
failed that are not currently under consideration and should not 
be a factor in determining his case. 
 
He  received  a  referral  EPR  due  to  failing  the  FA  and  asserts 
that if he did not fail his FA he would have easily received a 
“5” on his EPR for both rating periods in question.  Furthermore 
the “4” EPR continues to affect his promotion.  
 
DPSIM used the previous AFI when calculating his FA dated 30 Jun 
2010  which  resulted  in  an  “unsatisfactory”  FA.    Using  the 
correct  AFI  would  result  in  a  “satisfactory”  FA  and  therefore, 
invalidate the referral EPR for the period ending 6 Jul 2010. 
 
His complete response is at Exhibit I. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

4

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  to  warrant 
removing  the  applicant’s  FA  dated  18  Feb  2010  and  the  referral 
EPR  closing  21 Feb  2010,  from  his  records.    We  note  DPSIM’s 
original  recommendation  was  to  deny  this  request  since  the 
applicant failed to remain current or attain a passing score on 
his FA.  However, on 24 Jul 2012, they sent a memorandum to the 
applicant  requesting  additional  information  and  based  on  the 
documentation provided by the applicant, have provided a revised 
advisory opinion dated 26 Oct 2012, in which they recommend the 
FA  be  removed  from  the  AFFMS,  since  he  was  not  given  a  42 day 
acclimatization  period.    Nevertheless,  we  disagree  with  their 
revised recommendation and note that the applicant admits he was 
not  current  on  his  FA  prior  to  his  TDY.    While  he  states 
numerous  appointments  and  attempts  to  schedule  his  FA  were 
cancelled  through  no  fault  of  his  own,  he  has  not  provided 
substantial evidence to corroborate his assertions.  Although he 
believes  he  was  coerced  into  short-notice  testing  without  the 
proper  time  to  acclimate,  as  pointed-out  by  DPSID,  it  was  his 
lack  of  attention  in  remaining  current  on  his  fitness  testing 
within  the  appropriate  timeframe,  not  his  inability  to  pass  a 
short-noticed  fitness  test  that  caused  the  contested  report  to 
be referred.  As such, it is our opinion the applicant failed to 
exercise due diligence in ensuring he was current on his FA.  In 
view of above, we find no basis to recommend removal of the FA 
dated  18  Feb  2010  or  the  referral  EPR  ending  21  Feb  2010.  
Therefore,  we  conclude  the  applicant  has  failed  to  sustain  his 
burden that he has been the victim of an error or injustice in 
this  regard.    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 portion of his application. 
 
4.  Notwithstanding  the  above,  sufficient  relevant  evidence  has 
been  presented  to  demonstrate  the  existence  of  an  error  or 
injustice  warranting  partial-relief  regarding  the  applicant’s 
request that his FA dated 30 Jun 2010 be removed from the AFFMS. 
While  he  requests  the  entire  FA  be  removed  from  the  AFFMS,  we 
note  the  applicant  provided  documentation  to  support  his 
contentions that the incorrect length of running course was used 
during the FA.  However, since the cardio portion was the only 
component impacted by this error, we agree with DPISM that only 
this portion should be updated to reflect “Exempt” in the AFFMS.  
Although  DPSIM’s  advisory  opinion  states  updating  the  cardio 
component  to  “Exempt”  will  still  result  in  an  unsatisfactory 
score, they have since re-calculated his FA score and determined 
that  updating  the  cardio  component  to  "Exempt"  will  actually 
result  in  a  “satisfactory”  FA  score.    We  note  the  applicant 
contends  this  action  should  invalidate  the  referral  EPR  he 
received  for  the  period  ending  6 Jul  2010.    However,  after  a 
 

5

thorough  review  of  his  military  personnel  record  we  found  no 
evidence of an EPR ending 6 Jul 2010.  The applicant did receive 
a referral report for the period 2 Oct 2010 through 6 Jul 2011; 
however,  since  the  30 Jun  2010  FA  is  prior  to  the  reporting 
period of the EPR; this request is without merit.   Accordingly, 
we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected to the extent 
indicated below. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 
 
The  pertinent  military  records  of  the  Department  of  the  Air 
Force  relating  to  APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  show  that  the 
cardio  component  of  his  FA  dated  30  Jun  2010,  reflect  “exempt” 
in the AFFMS. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  AFBCMR  BC-2011-
00021 in Executive Session on 11 Dec 2012 and 22 Mar 2013, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
     Panel Chair 
     Member 
     Member 
 
 

 

 

6

All  members  voted  to  correct  the  records  as  recommended.    The 
following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR  BC-2012-
00021 was considered: 
 
     Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 26 Dec 2011, w/atchs. 
     Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 19 Jan 2012, w/atch. 
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 20 Mar 2012, w/atch. 
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 7 May 2012. 
     Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 May 2012. 
     Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 26 Oct 2012, w/atch. 
     Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Nov 2012. 
     Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Nov 2012, w/atchs. 
 
 
 
 
                                    
                                   Panel Chair 
 
 

 

7