RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02873 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His fitness assessment (FA) dated 2 August 2010 be removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His FA was conducted when conditions were not in compliance with the requirements set forth in AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program. Attachment 8, paragraph A8 of the AFI states that safety/environmental conditions must be evaluated to determine if the fitness assessment can be properly conducted. Paragraph A8.2.15 concerns heat stress and states that the wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) should be <85 degrees F; or heat index <99 degrees when WBGT is not available. On 2 August 2010, per the Barksdale bioenvironmental engineering office, the WBGT at 0800L was 85.3F and 92.7F at 1100L. 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 Senior Airman (SrA), E-4. By letter dated 12 July 2012, AFPC/DPSIM requested the applicant provide additional supporting documentation to substantiate his claim; specifically, copies of his signed fitness questionnaire and a signed memorandum from the NCOIC or OIC of the bioenvironmental engineering office stating the weather conditions for the day in question (Exhibit B). The applicant provided a signed memorandum from the Director of Bioenvironmental Engineering Operations stating that the WBGT readings for 2 August 2010 were 85.3 degrees F at 0800L and 92.7 degrees F at 1100L (Exhibit C). ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial. DPSIM states that per AFI 36- 2905, AFGM4, “Heat Stress: Wet Bulb Global Temperature must be <86 degrees F at the start of the 1.5 mile run/1.0-mile walk.” The applicant took the cardio component of the test at 0930 on 2 August 2010. The applicant provided a memorandum that only stated the WBGT at 0800 (85.3) and 1100 (92.7). With the times being so far apart they cannot calculate the temperature at 0930 on 2 August 2010. The complete AFPC/DPSIM evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9 October 2012 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). To date, this office has not received a 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 error or injustice. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant's contentions, we are not persuaded the contested FA is in error or unjust. The excerpt from AFI 36-2905 and the signed memo from the Director of Bioenvironmental Engineering Operations, specifying the wet bulb globe temperatures (WBGT) at 0800L and 1100L are noted; however, in the absence of the signed FA score sheet, signed fitness questionnaire and signed memo from the NCOIC or OIC of Bioenvironmental Engineering, stating the weather conditions at the time the applicant was completing the cardio component of the contested FA, i.e., 0930 hours on 2 August 2010, we find insufficient evidence to warrant disturbing the record. However, should the applicant provide such evidence, we would be willing to reconsider his request. 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 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 this application in Executive Session on 5 March 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-02873: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dtd 2 July 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 12 July 2012. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 25 September 2012, w/atch. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 October 2012.