RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00058
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Fitness Assessment (FA) dated 14 October 2012 be removed 
from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS).

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His failure in the FA was due to an error with the heart monitor 
he used during his assessment.  He was given a stress test by 
his civilian cardiac specialist a few days later and it was 
found that the fitness assessment was in error.  The test 
revealed that his heart rate never exceeded 140.

In support of the applicant’s appeal, he provides a personal 
statement, medical documentation and other documentation.

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 master sergeant.

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

		COMPOSITE
	DATE	SCORE		RATING

	13 April 2012	81.20		SATISFACTORY
*	14 October 2012	74.90		UNSATISFACTORY
	 8 February 2013	88.70		SATISFACTORY






	14 April 2013	92.10		EXCELLENT
	25 May 2013	EXEMPT		EXEMPT

*Contested FA score.

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial.  DPSIM states the applicant took 
his FA on 14 October 2012, scoring a composite score of 74.90 – 
unsatisfactory.  IAW AFI 36-2905 AFFGM4 dated 26 June 2012, 
paragraph 13 “If the medical evaluation validates the 
illness/injury, the Unit Commander may invalidate the test 
results.”  The email from the Chief of Aerospace Medicine 
stated, “Once I have the cardiology documentation to justify it, 
I will likely recommend his failure to be invalidated.”  While 
the Chief of Aerospace Medicine states this, there is no 
evidence he received the results and subsequently recommended 
the assessment be invalidated.  Additionally, the applicant has 
not provided documentation from the unit commander indicating 
his/her decision to invalidate this FA.  Note, the applicant 
provided the cardiology documentation; however, it is beyond 
this office’s expertise to interpret the results.

The DPSIM complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit 
B.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 19 September 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 
30 days (Exhibit C).  As of this date, no response has been 
received by this office. 

________________________________________________________________
_

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.  In this respect, we note the applicant 
did not provide any documentary evidence in support of his 
appeal.  Additionally, there is no evidence the Chief of 
Aerospace Medicine received the cardiology results and 
subsequently recommended the assessment be invalidated.  
Therefore, 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 the applicant has 
failed to sustain his burden of proof of the existence of an 
error or injustice.  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 an 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-2013-00058 in Executive Session on 12 December 2013, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 December 2012, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 11 September 2013,
              w/atchs.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 September 2013.
3 4