RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-04571
			COUNSEL:  NONE
			HEARING DESIRED: NO

	 

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Fitness Assessment dated 20 Sep 12 [sic] be removed from the 
Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS).

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was measured two times at the Fitness Assessment Cell (FAC) 
during the FA in question.  The measurements were 44 and 40.5; 
however, when he returned to his unit they measured him and his 
measurement was 38.5.  His commander provides a letter of 
support.

His 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.

The applicant’s last five FA scores are as follows:

	DATE	RESULT

	31 Jan 12	SATISFACTORY
	 1 Apr 12	EXEMPT
	17 Jul 12	UNSATISFACTORY
*	25 Sep 12	UNSATISFACTORY
	23 Oct 12	SATISFACTORY

* Contested FA test.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of 
the Air Force, which is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial.  The applicant is contesting a FA 
test dated 20 Sep 12; however, there is no FA test result with 
that date listed in AFFMS.  There is an FA test result in the 
AFMMS dated 25 Sep 12 that the applicant completed only the AC 
measurement and was recorded as incomplete for all other 
components.  According to the governing instructions, the FAC is 
the official body that certifies the FA tests.  In this case, 
there is no evidence that indicates they violated the 
instructions when the test was administered.  Although there was 
a disparity in measuring the applicant’s AC component of the FA 
test, the disparity in itself does not invalidate the 
measurements taken by the FAC; as a matter of fact, it appears 
they gave the applicant the benefit of the doubt and entered the 
lower AC measurement in the AFFMS.  

The commander decided to invalidate the FA result based on the 
alleged incorrect administration of the AC component.  
Unfortunately, the governing instruction does not authorize 
invalidation on this premise.  The commander may invalidate a 
test result only when an illness/injury is validated by a 
medical evaluation.  Further, there is no explanation as to why 
the applicant did not complete any other component of the FA in 
question.

The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 17 Feb 13 for review and comment within 30 days.  
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 error or injustice.  We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation 
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 
not been the victim of an error or injustice.  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-2012-04571 in Executive Session on 18 Jun 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Sep 12, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 7 Feb 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Feb 13.