RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02474 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His Fitness Assessment (FA) dated 10 Apr 12, be removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). 2. If his FA is removed, he would also like his Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 4 Mar 11 through 1 May 12, be declared void and removed from his records. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: During the run portion of the FA, he had a shooting pain down the front of his left shin. He tried walking to see if the pain would go away, and when it did not, he proceeded to run again in order to finish his test. On 18 Apr 12, he completed a mock test with his supervisor, he exceeded both components of muscle fitness; however, during the run portion he felt the same throbbing pain in his left shin. After completing the mock test, he was ordered to go to the Urgent Care Center at Wilford Hall to be checked out by the medical staff. He was diagnosed with shin splints and referred to his primary care manager (PCM). His PCM confirmed the diagnosis and he was placed on a 90-day profile. He provides a statement from his PCM and a letter of support from his section commander. His EPR is unjust because it is based on an injury that prevented him from successfully passing his physical fitness test during the timeframe of the report. The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of master sergeant. His FA dated 10 Apr 12, reflects a total score of 59.50, which was recorded as “Unsatisfactory.” The applicant’s contested EPR rendered for the period 4 Mar 11 thru 1 May 12 contains a “5” rating; however, the report was marked as “Meets” in Section III, Block 2, Standards: Enforcement and Personal Adherance, Conduct, Character, Military Bearing and Customs and Courtesies; and Block 3, Fitness. The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits D and E. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial. DPSIM states that on 27 Jun 12, a memorandum was sent to the applicant requesting additional documentation, specifically, copies of his AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report and AF Form 108, Physical Fitness Education and Intervention Processing, indicating that he had a preexisting condition that contributed to his fitness failure. DPSIM states per AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program - Air Force Guidance Memorandum 4, Paragraph 10, “If an Airman becomes injured or ill during the FA and is unable to complete all required components, he/she will have the option of being evaluated at the Medical Treatment Facility (MTF), but his/her test will still count unless rendered invalid by the unit commander. If the medical evaluation validates the illness/injury, the unit commander may invalidate the test results. The Airman will then be required to retest within 5 duty days or when capable based on the recommendations of the medical provider/MLO and the Exercise Physiologist (EP). Scores can be entered in AFFMS on the 6th duty day if the commander does not invalidate test results.” The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit B. On 12 Feb 13, AFPC/DPSIM provided a corrected advisory opinion recommending partial approval by updating the cardio component of the FA dated 10 Apr 12, to reflect “exempt” in the AFFMS. DPSIM states the applicant provided documentation from the MTF validating his injury, the commander chose not to invalidate the entire assessment, but did invalidate the cardio component. The commander’s memorandum serves as authorization to invalidate the cardio component only. Additionally, there is no evidence to support removing any other FA component from the AFFMS. The AF Form 422 provided by the applicant clears him for testing on all other components. The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSID states based on the recommendation from DPSIM to only exempt the cardio portion of the applicant’s FA test and not remove the entire 10 Apr 12 FA, they recommend the AFBCMR deny the applicant’s request to void the contested EPR. Based on this exemption of the cardio component, the applicant’s FA score would result in a passing score of 94.50. The applicant is requesting that his EPR be removed with no justification/explanation from either himself or any of his rating officials who signed the report. The contested report was marked down in Section III, Block 2; however, the applicant has not provided any substantial evidence that the “Meets” marking was clearly and solely based on the FA failure. The applicant had three consecutive failed FAs during the contested rating period; this could have possibly been the explanation for the mark-down of “Meets” as opposed to “Above Average” or “Clearly Exceeds.” The applicant only focuses on the 10 Apr 12 failed FA, which essentially is irrelevant to this contested report, as the applicant had a subsequent passing score of 97.25 as of the close-out date of this EPR; a passing score which was applied to this contested report. Historically, the applicant appears to have had difficulty in maintaining Air Force standards, as shown in the applicant’s historical AFFMS report. Prior to the contested report, the applicant had numerous FA failures; thereby, indicating the cardio portion may not have been the only issue, rather the applicant’s inability to successfully meet the overall fitness standards. It appears the applicant did not adequately prepare to take the fitness test within the contested rating period and that his own voluntary decision to take the fitness test (being well aware of the possible injuries) resulted in the three consecutive fitness failures that perhaps caused the mark-down on the contested EPR. Nevertheless, it was ultimately the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that he was properly prepared for his FAs. Although the applicant may feel that this was an injustice, there were avenues to ensure that any medical issues were taken into consideration prior to the report close-out date; not only by the rating chain, but with the proper authorities within the medical community. Therefore, to change or void this evaluation would be an injustice to other Airmen which have consulted with the medical community and received the proper medical profiles regarding the fitness program or the other Airmen which have met the regulatory Air Force requirements. The evaluation was completed within the regulatory Air Force requirements and procedures. An evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. Once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record. The burden of proof is on the applicant to substantiate that the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 17 Sep 12, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has not been received (Exhibit C). On 14 Mar 13, copies of the additional Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has not been received (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. After carefully reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s Fitness Assessment (FA) dated 10 Apr 12 or the contested report should be removed. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has suffered an error or injustice. In view of the above and absent evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought. 4. Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to warrant partial relief. After carefully considering the evidence of record, we agree with the recommendation made by DPSIM to update the cardio component of his FA dated 10 Apr 12, to reflect “exempt” in the AFFMS. We note this will change his overall composite score to reflect a passing score of 94.50. Accordingly, we recommend his records be corrected to the extent indicated below. ________________________________________________________________ _ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the cardio component of his Fitness Assessment (FA) dated 10 Apr 12, reflect “exempt” in the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). ________________________________________________________________ _ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-02474 in Executive Session on 28 Mar 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Jun 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 7 Sep 12, w/atch. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Sep 12. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 12 Feb 13. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 13 Mar 13. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 14 Mar 13, w/atchs.