RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02570

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be reinstated to the rank of Master Sergeant (MSgt).


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She believes that her demotion to Technical Sergeant (TSgt), 
after 19 years and 6 months due to Fitness Assessment (FA) 
failures, was unfair.

She went through a divorce, lost both in-laws, and had many 
other family issues in the last two years, which led to 
depression and she suffered many medical issues, including two 
herniated discs in her back, which made it very hard to remain 
fit.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 6 Nov 13, the applicant, who was serving on active duty in 
the Regular Air Force, was notified of her commander's intent to 
recommend demotion to the rank of TSgt for failure to attain 
physical standards.  Specifically, she failed to meet the 
minimum abdominal circumference during four FAs over a period of 
12 months.  After considering the applicant's appeal and the 
Staff Judge Advocate's (SJA) legal review, the demotion 
authority approved the demotion action from MSgt to TSgt 
effective 20 Nov 13.

On 26 Feb 14, the applicant was offered nonjudicial punishment 
under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  She 
was charged with, on divers’ occasions between on or about 
19 Feb 14 and on or about 21 Feb 14, without authority, failed 
to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty: 
fitness improvement training at the Rambler Fitness Center.  On 
12 Mar 14, the commander decided the applicant had committed the 
offense alleged.  The applicant was afforded the opportunity to 
consult with defense counsel, accepted the Article 15 and waived 
her right to demand trial by court-martial, after additional 
time was given to make her decision.  The applicant was given 
additional time again to present her appeal to the commander; 
however, she elected not appeal.  The applicant’s punishment 
consisted of a forfeiture of $200.00 pay and a suspended 
reduction to the grade of staff sergeant until 18 Jun 14.  On 
19 Mar 14, the Article 15 action was reviewed, by the Wing SJA’s 
office and determined to be legally sufficient.  

In accordance with Title 10, USC, Section 8964 and 8992, on 
7 Mar 14, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council 
(SAFPC) determined the applicant should be advanced to the grade 
of MSgt, on the USAF Retired List, effective 31 May 24, when she 
would attain 30 years of active service plus time on the Retired 
List. 

On 1 Jun 14, the applicant was relieved from active duty and 
retired from the Air Force with a reason for separation of 
voluntary retirement: sufficient service for retirement, in the 
grade of TSgt.  She was credited with 20 years and 19 days of 
active duty service.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIM did not provide a recommendation; however, DPSIM 
notes the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence of an 
error or an injustice to warrant an exemption or invalidation of 
the FAs during her career.  

The applicant provides medical documentation as proof of her 
physical ability history and medications she was taking; 
however, she did not provide any further medical documents.  The 
applicant did not provide any type of memorandum regarding the 
medical status from her medical provider listing her limitations 
after the medication received, nor did she provide an AF Form 
469, Duty Limiting Condition Report or AF Form 422, Notification 
of Air Force Member's Qualification Status.

The applicant's fitness records were not present in the Air 
Force Fitness Management System and were not provided by the 
applicant as evidence.

The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s request for 
reinstatement to the grade of MSgt, indicating the commander 
acted within his authority to demote the applicant from MSgt to 
TSgt, in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion 
Programs, para 6.3.5 (failure to keep fit).  

DPSOE opines the demotion action taken against the applicant was 
procedurally correct and there is no evidence there were any 
irregularities or that the case was mishandled in any way.  A 
legal review was conducted by SJA’s office and they found the 
file legally sufficient as the actions taken were permissible 
administrative actions taken at the discretion of the 
applicant's supervisors/commanders.

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant notes that her case is based on failure to remain 
fit in a 24 month period.  The requested AF Forms 422s/469s are 
not in her electronic record for some reason.  However, she was 
only able to find 2 of the documents from 2005.  She is not sure 
why the medical staff didn't provide copies of the forms; 
however, she understands that it was her responsibility to stay 
fit as a member of the AF.  

The applicant further explains the circumstances surrounding her 
failed FAs and reiterates her original contentions that they 
were due to medical issues, including anxiety and depression; 
alcoholism and her back conditions which limited her ability to 
remain fit.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of 
AF Forms 422 from previous years and various other additional 
documents.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit F.


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, to include her 
rebuttal of the Air Force advisories, in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendation 
of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility 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.


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-2014-02570 in Executive Session on 14 Apr 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated DD MMM YY, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 10 Jul 14.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 16 Oct 14.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Nov 14.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Dec 14, w/atchs.