RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02515 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His grade of staff sergeant (SSgt/E-5) be restored. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: After his FA failure, he was diagnosed with extrinsic asthma and allergic rhinitis and his medical provider indicates that this was the cause of his FA failure. He was demoted to the grade of senior airman (SrA/E-4); however, the diagnosis came after the six month period that allows his commander to revoke the demotion order. His new commander and first sergeant supports his request to restore his rank to SSgt based on inconsistent diagnoses and noted progression with physical fitness. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement; copies of letters of support from his commander, first sergeant and members of his unit; extracts from his medical records; FA records, and other supporting documents. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant failed his fitness assessments four times between 30 Nov 09 and 16 Dec 10 (30 Nov 09; 24 Jun 10; 22 Sep 10, and 16 Dec 10). On 18 Jan 11, the applicant received notification of demotion action under AFI 36- 2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Program, paragraph 6.3.5, Failure to Keep Fit. The commander reviewed statements submitted by the applicant and chose to continue demotion processing action. The demotion authority agreed with the commander's recommendation and directed the applicant be demoted to the rank of senior airman (SrA) effective 18 Feb 11. On 28 Oct 11, the applicant was diagnosed by a pulmonary specialist with extrinsic asthma and allergic rhinitis. On 31 Dec 12, the applicant was honorably released from active duty and transferred to the Air Force Reserve. He was separated in the grade of SrA, with a reason for separation of reduction in force. He was credited with 10 years, 10 months, and 12 days of active duty service. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM did not provide a recommendation. They note, the applicant is not asking to have any of his fitness test failures removed from AFFMS and his commander administered the actions in accordance with AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program. After reviewing his fitness history, he received an administrative demotion by his unit commander for numerous fitness failures. The applicant was diagnosed afterwards with extrinsic asthma and allergic rhinitis which his doctor believes affected his ability to pass the fitness assessment. However, this diagnosis came after the six-month period that allows for revocation of an administrative demotion. The complete DPSIM evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial, noting that the demotion action taken against the applicant was procedurally correct and there is no evidence there were any irregularities or that the case was mishandled in any way. The commander acted within his authority to demote the applicant from SSgt to SrA for his failure to maintain fitness standards based on the information he had at that time. In accordance with AFI 36-2905, Chapter 9, paragraphs 9.1.2. and 9.1.5.2., unit commanders may take adverse administrative action upon a member's unsatisfactory fitness score on an official fitness assessment. Attachment 19 provides commanders guidance when selecting the appropriate administrative and personnel actions for members who fail to attain physical fitness standards. Unit commanders shall make a discharge or retention recommendation to the Installation commander (or special/general court-martial convening authority in the member's chain of command) when an individual remains in the Unsatisfactory fitness category for a continuous 12-month period or receives four Unsatisfactory FA scores in a 24-month period. According to the medical group, he had no medical condition that would preclude him from achieving a passing score and they attributed his fitness failures to obesity and aerobic deconditioning. In this case, the commander could have recommended administrative separation due to the applicant's poor fitness score for a period of more than 12 months. Instead, he elected administrative demotion. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/JA recommends denial, stating, in part, that it is there opinion the applicant's demotion was within the commander and demotion authority's discretion, was in compliance with the applicable instructions, and was not contrary to any medical opinion or assessment. They found no evidence of an error or injustice. AFI 36-2502, lays out the basis for airman demotion. Paragraph 6.3.5 specifically states airmen may be demoted for failing to maintain or demonstrate the ability and willingness to attain physical standards. In paragraph 6.1.6, it states if the demotion authority restores the airman's original grade following the demotion, he or she must do so between three and six months after the effective date of the demotion. It goes on to state that restoring a grade should be an uncommon occurrence. Based on the available evidence, which includes statements from the applicant's current commander and first sergeant, medical records, FA history since 2004, and the demotion action file; the demotion action was procedurally correct and there is no evidence that the applicant's demotion was mishandled in any way. Shortly after his Dec 10 FA failure, the applicant had a medical appointment (in Jan 11). During that medical appointment, the applicant did not complain about any breathing issues and was not diagnosed with any condition that would have prevented him from passing his FA. He was not diagnosed with asthma until ten months after his fourth FA failure. Based on the information available to the commander at the time and the information now available, the commander's decision to initiate a demotion action and the demotion authority's decision to demote the applicant were in compliance with the applicable instructions and both acted within their discretion. The governing directives indicate that an administrative demotion is a recommended action for a fourth failure. In fact, the commander could have initiated discharge but elected demotion instead. While the applicant submitted a medical report stating he may have been unable to pass the FA due to a medical condition, the weight of the evidence shows otherwise. Even though there is no error warranting relief in the applicant's case, there remains the potential issue of injustice. The commander and demotion authority's actions were proper under the applicable instructions and are supported by the evidence available both at the time and now. While the applicant's pulmonary specialist opined in Feb 12 that the asthma may have impacted his ability to pass prior FAs, the Chief of Medical Staff, is of the opinion that the applicant's FA failures were the result of obesity and deconditioning, not asthma. In any event, the applicant's two FA failures preceding the demotion were not caused by the run component. Had the applicant been exempt from the run component of his 22 Sep 10 and 16 Dec 10 FAs, he still would have failed these FAs, because of low abdominal circumference and sit-up scores. The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 10 Dec 12 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 error or 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 and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. While we note the comments of the applicant’s former commander that assumed command following the demotion-imposing commander’s departure, former first sergeant, members of his former unit and their desire to overturn the applicant’s demotion, there is no conclusive documentation that he had a medical condition that precluded him from successfully completing his FAs; nor has the applicant provided any evidence which would lead us to believe the commander’s action was contrary to the provisions of the governing directives, unduly harsh, or inappropriate. In view of the above and 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 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-2012-02515 in Executive Session on 24 January 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 May 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 11 Sep 12, w/atchs. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 28 Sep 12. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 19 Nov 12. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Dec 12.