RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04024 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His fitness assessment test dated 3 March 2011 be removed. 2. The rating on his Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) with the close-out date of 10 March 2011 be restored to 5. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He had 2 disc osteophyte (herniated) along the posterior endplates from C4 to C6. His doctor determined that a fusion was necessary and he had surgery on 10 March 2010. Due to a misinterpretation of the medical notes from the surgery that was performed at an Army hospital, the AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Report, and the AF Form 422, Notification of Air Force Members Qualification Status, exempting him from all components of the Physical Fitness test were incorrectly completed at the Holloman clinic. He was required to test based on incorrect information. As a result, he failed his fitness test and received a referral EPR. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, a copy of the contested EPR, the DD Form 422, the DD Form 469, a supporting statement from his rater and excerpts of his medical records. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving 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 appropriate offices of the Air Force which are at Exhibits B through D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: USAF/A1PP recommends denial. The AF Form 469 issued on 18 February 2011 did not prohibit the applicant from performing exercises. He was permitted to walk, cycle, swim, use the elliptical, underwater treadmill, aqua jogger belt and strength train with a weight limit of 20 pounds. These exercises along with a balanced diet would have helped the member truly achieve a waist measurement small enough to pass the abdominal circumference of the fitness assessment. Had the member felt the AF Form 422 issued on 23 February 2011 did not reflect the treating physician’s recommendation for the fitness assessment, he should have addressed the matter prior to taking the fitness assessment. The complete USAF/A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board. An advisory opinion prepared by USAF/A1PP recommends denial of the applicant’s request. Based on this recommendation, the referral fitness comment as well as the “Does Not Meet” marking in section III, Block 3 is valid and appropriate as recorded on the contested evaluation and in accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and procedures. The applicant may feel this is an injustice; however, there are avenues to ensure that any medical issues are taken into consideration, not by the rating chain, but with the proper authorities within the medical community. To change or void this EPR would be an injustice to other Airmen who consulted with the medical community and received proper medical profiles regarding the fitness program or the other Airmen who have met the regulatory Air Force requirements. The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE defers recommendation to USAF/A1PP and AFPC/DPSID. The first time the contested report would have been considered for promotion was during cycle 11E7, however, the referral EPR rendered him ineligible for promotion consideration. Should the Board remove the report, the applicant would receive supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 11E7. The complete AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 23 March 2012, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ 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 injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of this case. However, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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-2011-04024 in Executive Session on 17 May 2012 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Oct 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, USAF/A1PP, dated 26 Jan 12. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 13 Feb 12. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 15 Mar 12. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Mar 12.