ROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00053
			COUNSEL:  NONE
	  		HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) ending 15 Mar 
2012 be changed, from an overall rating of “4” to “5.”   

2.  On 22 Apr 2013, the applicant amended his request to remove 
his Fitness Assessments (FA) dated 30 Jun 2011, 28 Nov 2011 and 
28 Mar 2012 from the Air Force Fitness Management System 
(AFFMS).   

3.  All Letters of Counseling (LOC), Letters of Reprimand (LOR) 
and his Unfavorable Information File (UIF) be removed from his 
records.      

4.  He be considered for supplemental promotion consideration to 
the grade of Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt) by the Calendar Year 
(CY) 2013 SMSgt Promotion Cycle.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His First Sergeant informed him that his unit sought on his 
behalf to remove the FA failures from AFFMS but was advised that 
he had to make the request to the Board.  

He received a referral EPR, with an overall rating of “4” 
because of the FA failure although he was marked “Clearly 
Exceeds” in every category except Fitness.

At the time he was being treated for breathing problems and he 
has since been diagnosed with Asthma.  It was also determined 
that his lung’s age is that of a 60 year old man.  He met a 
Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and was found fit for duty with 
duty limitations and is on a no running waiver.  

He failed the 30 Jun 2011 and 28 Nov 2011 FAs because he was on 
medication that affected his heart rate.  He was taking 
Albuterol for his Asthma and his heart rate was too high.  He 
failed the  28 Mar 2012 FA because he was having trouble 
breathing and became very dizzy between the push-up and sit-up 
portions.  He completed the FA but failed by two points.  His 
physician advised him that his Asthma was not controlled and 
prescribed him an oral steroid, Advair.  After being treated 
with this medication, he was able to pass the FA with an 
exemption for the cardio portion.  

The referral EPR should be removed and his EPR rating should be 
changed to a “5” based on his medical condition at the time of 
the failed FAs.

He was not allowed to test for promotion to the grade of SMSgt 
due to the referral EPR and UIF.

In support of his application, he provides copies of VA Form   
10-5345, Request and Authorization to Release Medical Records or 
Health Information; letters from his Primary Care Manager (PCM) 
and section commander, LOR, response to LOR and AF Form       
422, Notification of Air Force Member’s Qualification Status. 

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

 _______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade 
of Master Sergeant (MSgt).  

The applicant’s most recent FA results are as follows:

Date 
Composite Score
Rating
 3 Jul 2013
78.00
Satisfactory 
(Exempt: cardio)
30 Jan 2013
86.50
Satisfactory
(Exempt: cardio)
11 Jul 2012
78.75
Satisfactory
(Exempt: cardio)
28 Mar 2012
73.25
Unsatisfactory
(Exempt: cardio)
28 Nov 2011 
62.40
Unsatisfactory
30 Jun 2011
31.90
Unsatisfactory

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility, which is included at Exhibit B.  

 _______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request for 
removal of the contested FAs.  While the applicant’s FA history, 
along with one AF Form 422, reflects the applicant had an 
underlying medical condition, the evidence does not conclusively 
invalidate the contested FAs.  Each FA has been considered under 
its own merit and there is insufficient evidence to support his 
claim.  The FA dated 30 Jun 2011 indicates that he was unable to 
complete the run portion within the time limits allowed in 
accordance with Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2905, Air Force 
Fitness Program, Air Force Guidance Memorandum (AFGM) 2.  Aside 
from the memorandum from the applicant’s PCM, there is no 
evidence to support exempting the applicant from the cardio 
component.   During the FA on 28 Nov 2011, the applicant was 
tested on the walk test for the cardio component.  The AF Form 
422 provided by the applicant shows that he completed all 
components for which his PCM cleared him.  On the 28 Mar 2012 
FA, the applicant was exempt from the cardio component 
completely but was required to complete the remaining portions 
and failed to achieve an overall score of 75.   There are no AF 
Forms 422 or AF Forms 469 restricting the applicant’s 
participation from the FA to support his claim.  

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

DPSIM states they cannot validate the existence of the LOR or 
UIF.  It should also be noted, there is no evidence to indicate 
an LOR was filed in an official record, nor a UIF established on 
the applicant.  

The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change the 
rating or markings on the contested EPR based on the 
aforementioned recommendation of DPSIM.  The applicant did not 
provide sufficient substantiating documentation or evidence to 
prove his assertions that the contested evaluation was rendered 
unfairly or unjustly.  Air Force policy is that an evaluation 
report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of 
record.  Additionally, it is considered to represent the rating 
chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered.  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 and explanation.  The applicant has 
failed to provide any information from the rating officials on 
the contested report.  It has been determined that the report 
was accomplished in accordance with applicable Air Force 
policies and procedures. Once a report is accepted for file, 
only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or 
removal from an individual’s record.  The burden of proof is on 
the applicant and he has not substantiated that the contested 
report was rendered inaccurately and not in good faith by all 
evaluators based on knowledge available at the time.  
Furthermore, 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.  


The complete 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 6 Dec 2013 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E).  As of this date, this office has not received a 
response.  

________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice.  Should the applicant submit the required 
documentation, such as a memorandum, AF Form 469, Duty Limiting 
Condition Report or AF Form 422, Notification of Air Force 
Member’s Qualification Status, endorsed by his unit commander 
invalidating the failed FAs, we would be willing to reconsider 
his request.  Therefore, 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 that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 
that the application will only be reconsidered:  1) if the 
applicant complies with the third sentence in the section 
immediately above; or 2) upon the submission of newly discovered 
relevant evidence not considered with this application.  

________________________________________________________________



The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-00053 in Executive Session on 30 Jan 2014, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	
       , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Dec 2012, with atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 11 Sep 2013, w/atch.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 11 Sep 2013.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 12 Nov 2013.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Dec 2013.    



 
								Panel Chair