ROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00053 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) ending 15 Mar 2012 be changed, from an overall rating of “4” to “5.” 2. On 22 Apr 2013, the applicant amended his request to remove his Fitness Assessments (FA) dated 30 Jun 2011, 28 Nov 2011 and 28 Mar 2012 from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). 3. All Letters of Counseling (LOC), Letters of Reprimand (LOR) and his Unfavorable Information File (UIF) be removed from his records. 4. He be considered for supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt) by the Calendar Year (CY) 2013 SMSgt Promotion Cycle. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His First Sergeant informed him that his unit sought on his behalf to remove the FA failures from AFFMS but was advised that he had to make the request to the Board. He received a referral EPR, with an overall rating of “4” because of the FA failure although he was marked “Clearly Exceeds” in every category except Fitness. At the time he was being treated for breathing problems and he has since been diagnosed with Asthma. It was also determined that his lung’s age is that of a 60 year old man. He met a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and was found fit for duty with duty limitations and is on a no running waiver. He failed the 30 Jun 2011 and 28 Nov 2011 FAs because he was on medication that affected his heart rate. He was taking Albuterol for his Asthma and his heart rate was too high. He failed the 28 Mar 2012 FA because he was having trouble breathing and became very dizzy between the push-up and sit-up portions. He completed the FA but failed by two points. His physician advised him that his Asthma was not controlled and prescribed him an oral steroid, Advair. After being treated with this medication, he was able to pass the FA with an exemption for the cardio portion. The referral EPR should be removed and his EPR rating should be changed to a “5” based on his medical condition at the time of the failed FAs. He was not allowed to test for promotion to the grade of SMSgt due to the referral EPR and UIF. In support of his application, he provides copies of VA Form 10-5345, Request and Authorization to Release Medical Records or Health Information; letters from his Primary Care Manager (PCM) and section commander, LOR, response to LOR and AF Form 422, Notification of Air Force Member’s Qualification Status. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _______________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of Master Sergeant (MSgt). The applicant’s most recent FA results are as follows: Date Composite Score Rating 3 Jul 2013 78.00 Satisfactory (Exempt: cardio) 30 Jan 2013 86.50 Satisfactory (Exempt: cardio) 11 Jul 2012 78.75 Satisfactory (Exempt: cardio) 28 Mar 2012 73.25 Unsatisfactory (Exempt: cardio) 28 Nov 2011 62.40 Unsatisfactory 30 Jun 2011 31.90 Unsatisfactory The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is included at Exhibit B. _______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request for removal of the contested FAs. While the applicant’s FA history, along with one AF Form 422, reflects the applicant had an underlying medical condition, the evidence does not conclusively invalidate the contested FAs. Each FA has been considered under its own merit and there is insufficient evidence to support his claim. The FA dated 30 Jun 2011 indicates that he was unable to complete the run portion within the time limits allowed in accordance with Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2905, Air Force Fitness Program, Air Force Guidance Memorandum (AFGM) 2. Aside from the memorandum from the applicant’s PCM, there is no evidence to support exempting the applicant from the cardio component. During the FA on 28 Nov 2011, the applicant was tested on the walk test for the cardio component. The AF Form 422 provided by the applicant shows that he completed all components for which his PCM cleared him. On the 28 Mar 2012 FA, the applicant was exempt from the cardio component completely but was required to complete the remaining portions and failed to achieve an overall score of 75. There are no AF Forms 422 or AF Forms 469 restricting the applicant’s participation from the FA to support his claim. The complete DPSIM evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B. DPSIM states they cannot validate the existence of the LOR or UIF. It should also be noted, there is no evidence to indicate an LOR was filed in an official record, nor a UIF established on the applicant. The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change the rating or markings on the contested EPR based on the aforementioned recommendation of DPSIM. The applicant did not provide sufficient substantiating documentation or evidence to prove his assertions that the contested evaluation was rendered unfairly or unjustly. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. Additionally, it is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. To effectively challenge an evaluation, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain, not only for support, but also for clarification and explanation. The applicant has failed to provide any information from the rating officials on the contested report. It has been determined that the report was accomplished in accordance with applicable Air Force policies and procedures. 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 and he has not substantiated that the contested report was rendered inaccurately and not in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. Furthermore, 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 complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 6 Dec 2013 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, this office has not received a response. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has not 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. Should the applicant submit the required documentation, such as a memorandum, AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report or AF Form 422, Notification of Air Force Member’s Qualification Status, endorsed by his unit commander invalidating the failed FAs, we would be willing to reconsider his request. 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: 1) if the applicant complies with the third sentence in the section immediately above; or 2) upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-00053 in Executive Session on 30 Jan 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Dec 2012, with atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 11 Sep 2013, w/atch. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 11 Sep 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 12 Nov 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Dec 2013. 1 2