Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00039
Original file (BC-2013-00039.txt) Auto-classification: Approved
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00039

COUNSEL:  NONE
HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Fitness Assessment (FA), dated 27 Dec 2012, be removed from 
the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS)
________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to an administrative error, the correct duty restrictions 
were not included on the AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition 
Report.  Therefore, he was required to test on all components.

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of AF 
Forms 469.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained 
in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air 
Force.  Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in 
this Record of Proceedings.

________________________________________________________________

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIM recommends partial approval.  DPSIM states that the 
applicant’s AF Form 469 dated 11 May 2012, signed the same day 
as the FA in question, exempted him from the cardio component of 
the FA.  While he was exempt from the cardio component of the 
FA, his AF Form 469 did not restrict the other components.  
Therefore, there is no authority to remove them from the AFFMS.  
Consequently, they recommend the cardio component of the FA 
dated 27 Dec 2012, be updated to reflect "exempt" in AFFMS.  The 
overall composite score will change to reflect 
89.50 (Satisfactory).

The complete DPSIM evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit 
B.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 19 Sep 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.  As of 
this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit 
C).

________________________________________________________________

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 entire contested FA.  In this respect, we note the 
applicant has not provided substantial evidence to invalidate 
the results of the entire FA.  Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence the entire FA is in error or unjust, we find no basis 
upon which to recommend favorable consideration of his request 
to void the contested FA in its entirety.

4.  Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has 
been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or 
injustice to warrant partial relief.  In this respect, we note 
the medical clinic confirmed the AF Form 469 should have 
included a running restriction. In view of this and in the 
interest of justice, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has been the victim of either an 
error or an injustice.  Accordingly, we recommend the 
applicant’s records be corrected to the extent set forth 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 27 Dec 2012, reflect "exempt" in the 
AFFMS.

________________________________________________________________



The following members of the Board considered this application 
in Executive Session on 29 Oct 2013, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket number 
BC-2013-00039 was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Dec 2012, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 23 Aug 2013, w/atchs.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Sep 2013.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-05779

    Original file (BC-2012-05779.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    A resume of the applicant's FA results is as follows: Date Composite Score Rating *28 Nov 12 38.40 Unsatisfactory 31 May 12 85.90 Satisfactory 13 May 11 93.90 Excellent 23 Nov 10 80.10 Good 5 May 10 79.25 Good 2 Nov 09 85.00 Good * Contested FA The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 1. They...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01591

    Original file (BC 2013 01591.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 29 Nov 2011, a medical evaluation letter was signed by the same provider who issued the previous AF Form 469s. The letter states, “There are medical conditions that preclude this member from achieving a passing score on the Air Force fitness assessment.” On 1 Dec 2011, an AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report, was initiated from his Medical Provider, which could exempt the applicant from the cardio and push-up components of the FA. On 27 Mar 2012, a medical evaluation letter was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00290

    Original file (BC-2013-00290.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report; AF Form 422, Notification of Air Force Member’s Qualification Status, and a letter of support from his medical provider. He also received an AF Form 422, dated 2 Jan 2013, exempting him from the cardio portion of the FA; and on 15 Jan 2013, his medical provider submitted a memorandum for record stating he was injured during the 20 Dec 2012 FA. The medical...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05468

    Original file (BC 2012 05468.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    A commander can only recommend the removal of a fitness score when a member is unable to complete the FA due to a medical condition which is validated by a medical provider. In this case, after the applicant sustained his injury, there is no indication a medical provider exempted him from any components of the FA or that his commander invalidated the test. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01009

    Original file (BC-2013-01009.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant received an AF Form 469 from his primary medical care provider stating he had a medical condition preventing him from passing the cardio component of the FA effective 18 Nov 2011. Therefore, the applicant should not have been required to complete the cardio portion of the FA. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 2013.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00053

    Original file (BC-2013-00053.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    _______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request for removal of the contested FAs. The applicant has failed to provide any information from the rating officials on the contested report. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-00053 in Executive Session on 30 Jan 2014, under the provisions of AFI...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05279

    Original file (BC 2013 05279.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 25 Oct 13 she received an updated AF Form 469, stating that she was exempt from the cardio component of the FA. The applicant's AF Form 469 shows the cardio limitations expired on 23 Sep 13, which would have allowed the applicant to complete the cardio component of the FA. The applicant did not provide an updated AF Form 469 to show the exemption expired on a later date.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04151

    Original file (BC-2012-04151.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04151 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His fitness assessment (FA), dated 2 August 2012, be removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was not medically fit to complete the walk,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01802

    Original file (BC 2013 01802.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant’s last eight FA results are as follows: Date Composite Score Rating 13 Nov 13 100 Excellent (Exempt from Cardio/PU) 9 May 13 100 Excellent (Exempt from Cardio/PU) *25 Mar 13 33.33 Unsatisfactory (Exempt from PU) *12 Dec 12 - Removed by FAAB 22 Jan 14 28 Jun 12 100 Excellent (Exempt from Cardio/PU/SU) *19 Mar 12 - Removed by FAAB 22 Jan 14 2 Aug 11 84.70 Satisfactory 28 Apr 11 77.90 Unsatisfactory (minimum SU) * Contested FA In accordance with guidance at the time of contested...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-05541

    Original file (BC-2012-05541.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Although the applicant is not clear on which FA test he would like removed from his records, we believe based on the Air Force office of primary responsibility review of his record and the AF Form 108 provided by the applicant that reflects his FA dated 15 Mar 12 is, in fact, the assessment he is requesting to be removed. The AF Form 422, Notification of Air Force Member’s Qualification Status, documenting his limitations and duty exemptions is noted; however, we also note the Military...