RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01797
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His grade be restored to technical sergeant (E-6).
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He appealed to be restored to the grade of technical sergeant (E-
6) to his chain of command, but was denied. Shortly after his
appeal was denied, two Fitness Assessment (FA) failures, which
were part of his demotion package, were removed from his Air Force
Fitness Management System (AFFMS) record; however, he was told by
his chain of command there was nothing they could do for him.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 24 Jun 94, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air
Force.
On 29 Oct 12, the applicants commander notified him he was
recommending his demotion to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) IAW
36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs. The specific basis
for this action was failure to keep physically fit IAW 36-2905,
Fitness Programs, as evidenced by four FA failures between
and .
On 13 Nov 12, the applicant was demoted by the approval authority.
On 4 Dec 12, the approval authority denied his appeal request and
upheld the demotion action.
On 3 Jun 13, the applicant submitted a grade restoration request
to his chain of command.
On 7 Nov 13, upon recommendations from lower-level commanders, and
a legal review, the approval authority denied the grade
restoration request.
On 20 Feb 14, according to information provided by the applicant,
the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB) directed the removal
of two of his FA failures ( and ) from the applicants
AFFMS record.
On 21 Apr 14, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council
(SAFPC) conducted a grade determination evaluation in conjunction
with the applicants retirement processing and found the applicant
served satisfactorily in the higher grade of technical sergeant
(E-6) and directed the applicant be advanced to that grade on the
retired list, effective 24 Jun 24, the date the applicant would
have completed 30 years of service.
On 30 Jun 14, the applicant was relieved from active duty and
retired in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), effective 1 Jul 14,
and was credited with 20 years and 7 days of active service.
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/DPSOE recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an
error or an injustice. AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/ Demotion
Programs, states, airmen may be demoted for failing to maintain or
demonstrate the ability and willingness to attain physical
standards. Further, AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, states unit
commanders may take adverse administrative action upon a member's
unsatisfactory fitness score on an official FA. Attachment 14
provides commanders guidance when selecting the appropriate
administrative and personnel actions for members who fail to
attain physical fitness standards. This table is only
illustrative and is not binding; commanders may use more than one
action per failure. Although two of the six FA failures have been
removed by the FAAB, the applicant does not have the
support/approval of his commander, or the demotion authority, to
restore his rank to Technical Sergeant (E-6). The applicant still
has four remaining FA failures, of which the failure was due
to poor performance. Therefore, the commander is within his
authority to demote the applicant for the remaining FA failures
and deny the applicant's request for restoration of rank.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluations was forwarded to the applicant
on 4 Oct 14 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 applicants complete submission in judging the
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility
(OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the
applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. While
we note the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB) has determined
that two of the four Fitness Assessment (FA) failures that formed
the basis of the action should be removed, we are not convinced
that the removal of these FA failures undermines the basis for the
contested action. In this respect, we note that the applicants
intent to appeal to the FAAB was specifically noted during the
installation-level legal review of his plea to have his rank
restored and, regardless of the fact the two FAs may eventually be
removed from his record, the chain of command was not persuaded to
change their previous decision to demote the applicant.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
basis to recommend granting the requested relief.
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-2014-01797 in Executive Session on 25 Feb 15 under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Apr 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 28 May 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Oct 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03455
On 25 Apr 12, the applicant received notification of demotion action under AFI 36-2502, Failure to Keep Fit, paragraph 6.3.5, due to four fitness assessment failures within a 24-month period. However, recommend removing FA dated 18 Jun 10, based on the fact that this was before the implementation of AFI 36-2905 (AFGM2), dated 20 Dec 10, giving Unit Commanders the authority to invalidate FAs. Although the applicant provided a memorandum from his medical provider stating that he had a...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02301
On 17 Apr 12, the contested commander-directed EPR, rendered for the period 29 Oct 11 through 17 Apr 12, was referred to the applicant for a does not meet standards rating in Block 2 (Standards, Conduct, Character, and Military Bearing) and for the following comment, -Member was demoted due to third time failure of PT test. The EPR was also referred for a does not meet standards rating in Block 3 (Fitness) and for the following comment, Member failed to meet minimum physical fitness...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04035 (2)
In a letter dated 22 Oct 13, the demotion authority reinstated his grade to SSgt with his original Date of Rank (DOR) of 9 Jan 13. As such, if the applicant wants to make a request to remove the referral EPRs, he must first exhaust all available avenues of administrative relief provided by existing law or regulations, such as the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) prior to seeking relief before this Board, as required by the governing Air Force Instruction. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04179
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of his request to have his FA dated 20 Jun 12, removed from AFFMS indicating the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to support his claim. The complete DPSIM evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicants request to remove the demotion action and restore his rank to SrA. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 13 Jun 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02515
In paragraph 6.1.6, it states if the demotion authority restores the airman's original grade following the demotion, he or she must do so between three and six months after the effective date of the demotion. Based on the available evidence, which includes statements from the applicant's current commander and first sergeant, medical records, FA history since 2004, and the demotion action file; the demotion action was procedurally correct and there is no evidence that the applicant's...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05619
Since his 21 April 2010 FA was removed from his record, which was the basis for his demotion action, his rank should be restored. There is no demotion action or demotion order in his personnel records. The applicant contends that his former grade should be restored because his demotion was based upon four consecutive fitness assessment (FA) failures, but one of the four failures was later declared void and removed from his records.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00365
Her referral 4 EPR was rendered as a result of the contested FA failures and should therefore also be removed from her records. 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 20 May 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). The applicant contends that because she had a medical condition that unfairly precluded her from attaining passing fitness...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04096
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 applicants 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 02171
On 30 Jun 12, the applicant provided a response to the contested referral EPR indicating he made an honest attempt to pass the contested FA; however, he realized that due to his hip pain and past injuries (having had an AF Form 422, Notification of Air Force Members Qualification Status requiring he only accomplish the walk assessment in Sept of 11), he should have sought medical attention prior to the FA. He reiterated that his contested FA failure was the result of his medical...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01519
He be provided the E-5 back-pay from the date of his 15 May 13 demotion date. The narrative reason for his retirement was Temporary Early Retirement Authority. 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 and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial due to lack of supporting evidence (i.e. medical validation, commander's invalidation...