RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01398 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) (AB thru TSgt), rendered for the period 14 Dec 2009 through 13 Dec 2010, be changed from a referral 4 to a non-referral 5, or be removed from her records. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her EPR is not accurate because her fitness level was not accurately assessed during her 10 Nov 2010 fitness assessment. A pre-existing medical condition caused her to fail her PT test. She has a history of abnormal heart rate and has sleep apnea, which she believes prevented her from passing the walk test. In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of the contested report, her rebuttal thereto, excerpts from her medical records related to her sleep apnea, and a supporting statement from her physician assistant. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant currently serves in the Regular Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change or remove her EPR. The applicant failed a fitness assessment on 10 Nov 10 and as a result received a referral EPR. Although the applicant may have had some medical issues, there are avenues within the medical community to support these cases and afford Airmen the opportunity to recover from such medical issues; however, the medical community did not deem this a contributing factor for the applicant not to meet Air Force fitness requirements, hence the absence of an AF Form 422, Duty Limitations/Physical Profile, in the applicant’s records. While it appears the applicant performed [her duties] extremely well during the reporting period, the failed fitness assessment caused the contested report to be a referral, and although the Air Force does not mandate a specific overall rating in these cases, it appears the rating chain deemed that a “4” rating was appropriate. Therefore, the evaluation was complete and within the regulatory Air Force requirements. To change or void this evaluation would be an injustice to other Airmen who have received the proper medical profiles regarding the fitness program or the other Airmen who have met the regulatory requirements. The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ USAF/A1PP recommends denial, indicating that their medical Subject Matter Expert reviewed the medical documentation on this case, and determined it was unlikely that her mild sleep apnea diagnosis contributed to her fitness failure. The complete AFPC/A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 1 Jul 11 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or an 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 (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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 issue(s) 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-2011-01398 in Executive Session on 10 Jan 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Apr 2011, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 20 Jun 2011 Exhibit D. Letter, HQ USAF/A1PP, dated 28 Apr 2011 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Jul 2011