RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03057 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 2 July 2009 through 15 April 2010 be voided and removed from her records. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The contested EPR contains incorrect information. In support of her appeal, the applicant submits a personal statement and copies of her promotion information, an excerpt of Air Force Instruction 36-2905, the contested EPR, a Referral EPR Memorandum, her Letter of Reprimand (LOR), her rebuttal to the LOR, her Unfavorable Information File (UIF) notification, an Enlisted SURF, an excerpt of Air Force Instruction 10-248, several electronic communications, Notifications of Air Force Member’s Qualification Status, Cycle Ergometry Aerobics Fitness Assessment Worksheets, Individual Test History, and Fitness Program Scorecards. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) with a date of rank of 1 December 2003. The following is a resume of the applicant’s EPR profile: PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 20 Dec 01 (SrA) 4 16 Sep 02 5 16 Sep 03 5 16 Sep 04 (SSgt) 5 1 Jul 05 5 1 Jul 06 5 1 Jul 07 4 1 Jul 08 5 PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 1 Jul 09 5 15 Apr 10* 4 * Contested report The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s service records, are contained in the Air Force evaluations at Exhibits B and C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denying the applicant’s request to void the contested EPR; however, recommends correcting the invalid comment in Section III, Block 3, to reflect “Failed to meet minimum standards; scored 41 on last PT test.” DPSIDEP states the applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) under the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports; however the ERAB reviewed this application and was not convinced the contested report was inaccurate or unjust. DPSIDEP states the contested EPR, Section III, Block 3, indicates “Failed twice to meet minimum standards; scored 41 on last PT test.” However, it was determined the Fitness Assessment (FA) she took was invalid and it was later removed after the close-out of the report. The applicant retook her FA on 9 April 2010, but failed again. She now contends the second failure is also invalid, but failed to produce any documentation to prove her claim. DPSIDEP indicates that since the applicant’s first fitness failure on 16 February 2010 has been removed from the Air Force Management System, the comment in Section III, Block 3, should be corrected versus having the report voided. The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOE defers to the DPSIDEP recommendation. DPSOE states the applicant was considered and tentatively selected for promotion to technical sergeant during cycle 10E6 per promotion sequence number (PSN) 2676 which had not incremented at the time of their evaluation. However, when she received the referral report, it automatically cancelled her promotion in accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-2502, Table 1.1, Rule 22. DPSOE indicates that should the Board grant the applicant’s request to remove the referral EPR, it could direct the promotion to technical sergeant be reinstated. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: She has been fighting this issue since it occurred in April. The test she took on 9 April 2010 was initially a practice test when she performed the Ergo test in preparation of the 17 May 2010 scheduled test date. Later that same day, she was summoned to the Squadron to accomplish a waist measurement. She asked the Unit Fitness Program Manager (UFPM) why she would need a waist measurement for a practice Ergo test and he stated he was told to enter the score because it was the 42nd day after the last test. The UFPM said he was advised by leadership to input the score; however, leadership denied making those statements. The contested EPR was written in April because her reporting official was scheduled for a permanent change of station. Her leadership had no desire to correct their actions with the Physical Test or the FAs until they became aware that she had contacted the Inspector General’s office and the Area Defense Counsel. It was at this point that her commander decided to remove the first test. She feels both the Physical Test and practice test should both be removed due to her medical conditions and physical limitations. There has been no change or improvement in her medical condition and the restrictions state she should only perform waist circumference measurement. She is undergoing treatments for her condition and meeting a Medical Evaluation Board. She has been told that she could return to duty with limitations. It is her desire to continue her dedicated military service in the Air Force. The applicant’s complete rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice in regard to the applicant’s contested EPR. After reviewing the evidence of record, we are persuaded that some relief is warranted. We note the FA she took on 16 February 2010 was invalid and later removed after the close-out of the contested report. Therefore, we agree with AFPC/DPSIDEP that the contested report should be changed to reflect the correct information rather than voiding the report as requested. We note the applicant contends her 9 April 2010 FA is also invalid; however, she does not provide evidence to support this assertion. Based on the foregoing, we recommend her record be corrected as indicated below. 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 RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that Section III, Block 3, of her Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSgt), rendered for the period 21 July 2009 through 15 April 2010 be corrected to reflect “Failed to meet minimum standards; scored 41 on last PT test” rather than “Failed twice to meet minimum standards; scored 41 on last PT test.” _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-03057 in Executive Session on 26 May 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2010- 03057 was considered : Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Aug 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 24 Sep 10. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 14 Oct 10. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Nov 10. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Nov 10, w/atchs.