Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01145
Original file (BC 2014 01145.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01145

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The Fitness Assessments (FA) dated 2 Jan 13 be removed from 
the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS).

2.  The Referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for 
the period 2 Sep 12 through 1 Sep 13 be removed from her 
records.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She received an unsatisfactory FA and referral EPR as a result 
of her medical condition which interfered with her ability to 
control her weight.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 16 Feb 10, the applicant commenced her enlistment in the 
Regular Air Force.  

On 2 Jan 13, the applicant participated in a FA, attaining an 
overall composite score of 58.90, which constituted an 
“unsatisfactory” assessment.  She was credited with the 
following composite scores:  Cardio - 15:52/44.10 points, 
Abdominal Circumference – 37.00/0.00 points, Push-ups – 31/8.30 
points, Sit-ups – 39/6.50 points.

The contested EPR was referred to the applicant for a “Does Not 
Meet” standards rating in Section 3, Fitness, and the comment 
“Failed Fitness Assessment with a 58.90.”






The applicant’s FA results are as follows:

Date 
Composite Score
Rating
 *2 Jan 13
58.90
Unsatisfactory
 23 Nov 11
91.00
Excellent
 31 Aug 11
Exempt
Exempt
 17 Feb 11
86.90
Satisfactory
  1 Feb 11
85.00
Exempt
 23 Dec 10
73.60
Unsatisfactory
 12 Apr 10
89.00
Good
 
*Contested FA

On 29 Sep 14, the applicant was furnished an honorable 
discharge, and was credited with 4 years, 7 months and 14 days 
of active service. 


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void 
the contested EPR indicating there is no evidence of an error or 
an injustice.  The applicant did not file an appeal through the 
Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB).  According to AFI 36-
2905, Fitness Program, dated 3 Jan 13, service members are to 
remain current as defined in the previous AFI dated 1 Jul 10.  
Failure to remain current as well as failing to pass the FA 
before the end of the reporting period will result in a “Does 
Not Meet” on the performance report for the rating period.  
Since the applicant failed her last assessment and was in a non-
current status her rating chain had no choice but to refer the 
EPR in question.

While the applicant believes the contested report was unfair and 
unjust, she has not provided any evidence to substantiate the 
contested report was rendered unfairly or unjustly.  Air Force 
policy is than an evaluation is accurate as written when it 
becomes a matter of record; and the report is considered to 
represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is 
rendered.  Furthermore, 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 she has not provided any evidence to show the 
contested report was unjust or inaccurate.

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

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
remove the contested FA noting there is no evidence of an error 
or an injustice.  According to the AFI 36-2905, the medical 
providers are required to list the physical limitations that 
render a service member from participating or accomplishing a 
FA.  The medical provider must indicate the length of time 
required for the restrictions due to the physical limitations 
for the FA. While the applicant provided documentation from her 
medical provider stating she had a medical condition, he did not 
provide what the specific limitations were for the FA. 

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


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 11 Fe 15 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 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.  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 the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for 
our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
of injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested 
relief.

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-2014-01145 in Executive Session on 24 Mar 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Jan 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 24 Mar 14
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 3 Feb 15.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Feb 15.
						

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01534

    Original file (BC-2012-01534.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends updating the push-up component of the applicant’s 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 applicant’s request to remove her contested EPR. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01944

    Original file (BC 2013 01944.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The updated AFFMS record indicates applicant continued to achieve unsatisfactory scores due to a composite score of 69.5 on both contested FAs. The applicant’s last five FA results are as follows: Date Composite Score Rating 5 Nov 13 70.00 Unsatisfactory 29 May 13 81.5 Satisfactory 27 Jul 12 Exempt Exempt *30 May 12 69.5 (corrected) Unsatisfactory *2 Mar 12 69.5 (corrected) Unsatisfactory * Contested FA On 16 Dec 13, the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board corrected the AFFMS records to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-00021

    Original file (BC-2012-00021.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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. The complete DPSID evaluation, with...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04096

    Original file (BC 2013 04096.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 applicant’s 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 02502

    Original file (BC 2013 02502.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    His records be corrected to show that he is now and was promotion eligible during the time he was placed on a Control Roster. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOA recommends closing the case, since the applicant's record currently reflects his requested actions and they do not have the history, nor are they the OPR for control roster actions; however, based on the information provided the previous RE code 4I would have been a result of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02775

    Original file (BC 2013 02775.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ On 7 Jan 14, the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB) disapproved the applicant’s 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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 05806

    Original file (BC 2013 05806.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04301

    Original file (BC-2012-04301.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 03485

    Original file (BC 2012 03485.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Furthermore, because the failed FAs resulted in the applicant receiving a referral EPR and cancellation of his promotion, to the grade of technical sergeant, we recommend the referral EPR for the period of 29 Feb 2012 to 11 Jul 2012 be declared void and removed from his records and that his promotion to the grade of technical sergeant be reinstated with a date of rank and effective date of 1 Sep 2012. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 19 Sep 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 29...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03320

    Original file (BC-2012-03320.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The medical condition that prevented him from doing the sit-up portion of the Air Force FA was not discovered until after his fourth failure and recommendation for discharge. On 22 Feb 12, the applicant participated in the second contested FA, attaining a composite score of 67.60, which constituted an unsatisfactory assessment.The following is a resume of his EPR ratings: RATING PERIOD PROMOTION...