RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04664 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Fitness Assessment (FA) scores he received on 30 Jul 10, 7 Dec 10, 12 Apr 11, and 8 Jul 11 be removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His primary care manager (PCM) has identified his medical problems as chronic. His back problems date back to 2005 and have become progressively worse. He has been placed on several medical profiles and various medications for pain management. These actions did not properly address his medical problems nor allow for a fair test to be administered. He received a referral performance report as a result of the unsatisfactory FAs. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his AF Forms 469, Duty Limiting Condition (DLC) Report, AF Forms 422, Notification of Air Force Member’s Qualification Status, and memoranda from his commander and PCM. 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 rank of staff sergeant (E-5). On 25 Jun 10, the applicant was issued an AF Form 469, with a 25 Jul 10 expiration date, reflecting he was restricted from performing sit ups and pushups, but was allowed to run at his own pace/distance. On 29 Jun 10, the applicant was issued another AF Form 469 indicating that if he is required to complete a fitness test prior to his DLC release date, he should only be subjected to the waist measurement and the 3 mile brisk walk or cycle ergometry test, unless the applicant states he is able to perform the 1.5 mile run. On 30 Jul 10, the applicant participated in a FA and received a composite score of 35.63, which placed him in an “unsatisfactory” fitness category. On 6 Oct 10, the applicant was issued another AF Form 469 which updated his DLC restrictions to reflect that he could run and do sit ups and pushups at his own pace. The AF Form 469 further indicates if the applicant’s restrictions were greater than 30 days, he was required to be seen by the Health and Wellness Center (HAWC) for an exercise prescription. The recommendation release date was 4 Jun 11. On 7 Oct 10, the applicant was issued an AF Form 422 reflecting the applicant had a DLC created on 6 Oct 10 for the same injury/condition from his previous DLC. The new DLC had a release date of 4 Jan 11 for running, sit ups, and pushups at own pace. If the applicant was required to complete a fitness test before the DLC release date plus 42 days of reconditioning he was to test on waist measurement and the 1 mile walk. If applicant was able to perform the pushups/crunches and/or the 1.5 mile run (without aggravating his condition) he could do so. If the DLC was greater than 30 days the applicant was required to meet with the Fitness Program Manger (FPM) to discuss his exercise regimen. On 7 Dec 10, the applicant participated in a FA and received a composite score of 42.88, which placed him in an “unsatisfactory” fitness category. On 23 Mar 11, the applicant was issued another AF Form 469 reflecting he applicant was exempt from running greater than 100 yards, doing pushups and sit ups, or participating in unit physical fitness training for up to 30 days. Furthermore, if the fitness restrictions were for greater than 30 days, or if the applicant was required to test within the next 30 days, the Unit Fitness Program Manager (UFPM) or the applicant had to call the HAWC for an exercise prescription. The DLC release date was 21 Jun 11. On 29 Mar 11, the applicant was issued an AF Form 422 reflecting similar restrictions. The AF Form 422 further indicated the applicant was to continue to attempt to meet training guidelines for aerobic fitness (3-5 days, 20 minute sessions, 60-90 percent maximum heart rate), strength training (2 weeks for 8-10 exercises) and range of motion (flexibility) exercises to address all major muscle groups (3 day/week). On 12 Apr 11, the applicant participated in a FA and received a composite score of 0.00 on his FA, which placed him in an “unsatisfactory” fitness category. On 22 Apr 11, the applicant was issued an AF Form 422 reflecting the applicant’s DLC was updated with a new release date of 21 Jun 11 with the following restrictions: no running greater than 100 yards, no pushups or sit ups. If the applicant was required to complete a fitness test before the DLC release date plus 42 days reconditioning he was to test on waist measurement and the one mile walk only. The AF Form 422 further noted if the applicant stated his injury/condition was aggravated by performing the 1 mile walk, then the 1 mile walk was to be waived and he was to be tested solely on waist measurement. The applicant was further encouraged to continue to attempt training as previously recommended. On 8 Jul 11, the applicant participated in a FA and received a composite score of 73.38 on his FA, which placed him in an “unsatisfactory” fitness category. A memorandum dated 8 Aug 11, from the applicant’s PCM reflects the applicant had a medical condition that precluded the applicant from achieving passing scores on his FAs for 12 Apr 11 and 8 Jul 11. The PCM further stated he was unable to speak on the FAs for 30 Jul 10 and 7 Dec 10 because the applicant was not under his care; however, his records do reflect that at the time he was under a physician’s care for low back pain, and medical profiles were in place. The PCM further stated the applicant’s chronic low back pain does limit his physical fitness capabilities, but it was not the sole reason for his failures. On 20 Apr 11, the contested EPR was referred to the applicant because he failed to meet/maintain fitness standards. On 25 Apr 11, the applicant submitted a rebuttal thereto and the EPR was rendered upon him the same day. On 22 Sep 11, the applicant was issued an AF Form 469 reflecting the applicant could run, walk, perform sit ups, and pushups at his own pace as tolerated with a release date of 21 Nov 11. The applicant was exempt from unit physical fitness training for up to 30 days. Furthermore, if the fitness restrictions were for greater than 30 days, or if the applicant was required to test within the next 30 days, the UFPM or the applicant was to call the HAWC for an exercise prescription. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial, noting that while the applicant’s PCM stated the applicant’s chronic back pain does limit his physical fitness opportunities, it is not the sole reason for his fitness failures. The complete AFPC/DPSIM evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSIDE indicates there is no action required by their office since the contested performance report has not been made a matter of record; however, once the report is made a matter of records the applicant must first seek relief via the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB). The complete AFPC/DPSIDE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: His chronic medical condition affected his Physical Training (PT). His original package speaks to the validity of the FAs and his subsequent failures. He is unaware of any test in the Air Force that can be validated if there are outside factors that altered the outcome. If any part of the test and subsequent score was affected by a medical condition then the just conclusion is to label the test invalid. His PCM stated his chronic lower back pain limits his physical fitness capabilities, but it's not the sole reason for his failures. However, this statement does not say what "are" the other reasons for his failures. This statement is vague and should not be acceptable as the basis to deny his request. His PCM clearly indicated there is a medical condition that precluded him from achieving a passing score on his fitness test. This is clear and indisputable evidence the fitness tests were indeed affected by his medical condition. 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. The applicant contends his chronic back pain precluded him from passing four fitness assessments (FA) and ultimately resulted in him receiving the contested referral enlisted performance report (EPR). After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, to include his response to the advisory opinion rendered in his case, we are not convinced that his chronic condition precluded him from obtaining a fair FA. While it is clear the applicant did suffer from chronic lower back pain and the record indicates he was appropriately placed on various profile restrictions during the matter under review, we do not find the applicant’s arguments and the documentation presented sufficient to conclude the contested FAs were somehow unfair and that he was not appropriately tested within the limitations prescribed in the various profile documents as his condition evolved. While the applicant has provided a supporting statement from his Primary Care Manager (PCM) indicating that his medical condition limited his physical fitness opportunities, we note the PCM also clearly indicated said condition was not the sole basis for the applicant’s failure to attain a passing FA score. Therefore, having no basis to conclude the FAs were erroneous or somehow unfair, we find no basis that would serve to undermine the validity of the contested referral EPR. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES 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-2011-04664 in Executive Session on 18 Sep 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Nov 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Military Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIM, dated 24 Feb 12. Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIDE, dated 3 May 12. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, Letter, dated 11 May 12. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Jun 12.