RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00751 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His 27 Jul 11, 31 Oct 11, 30 Jul 12, and 24 Oct 12 Fitness Assessment (FA) scores be removed from his records. 2. His referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) be declared void and removed from his records. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He had a medical condition that precluded him from successfully completing the contested FAs. As a result of the failures, he received a referral EPR. An administrative separation package was created but later withdrawn when evidence was substantiated relative to his medical condition and Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) proceedings. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 14 Oct 03, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the Regular Air Force. On 9 Nov 12, the contested EPR was referred to the applicant for a “does not meet” standards rating in Block II, Fitness, and comments related to his four fitness failures in a 24-month period. On 4 Dec 12, the applicant was referred for Pulmonology Function testing due to complaints of shortness of breath (SOB) that only occur while running greater than one mile. On 7 Dec 12, the applicant’s test interpretation indicated that he had airway obstruction on the baseline spirometry with pre- bronchodilator loop showing airway obstruction. The readings suggested small airway disease. On 10 Dec 12, the applicant was prescribed Flovent and Albuterol. The applicant was instructed to take the Flovent two puffs twice a day and Albuterol as needed. The chest x-ray taken on this date was normal. On 7 Jan 13, the applicant was reevaluated reporting he was using the Flovent medication as prescribed; however, he did not have an opportunity to run due to his “no running” profile for lower back pain. He reported that he had lower back pain since Oct 12, and his profile was valid through Jan 13. On 14 Jan 13, a medical provider typed a note on letterhead regarding the applicant indicating the aforementioned treatment information and stated the applicant had no history of asthma. On 28 Mar 13, the applicant’s supervisor did not recommend him for reenlistment. Remarks by the unit Commander indicated the applicant had received numerous administrative actions and was placed on a Control Roster with an Unfavorable Information File (UIF). On this date, the applicant marked the box indicating he intended to appeal this decision. On 18 Apr 13, the applicant’s appeal was denied by the military personnel appeal authority. On 10 May 13, the applicant acknowledged receipt that his appeal was denied by the appeal authority. On 31 May 13, the applicant was honorably separated from the Regular Air Force in grade of staff sergeant (E-5) and was credited with 9 years, 7 months, and 17 days of military service. The applicant’s DD Form 214 also listed a reentry code of 2X (first, second term, or career airman not selected for reenlistment). The narrative reason for separation indicated non-retention on active duty. On 15 Nov 13, the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB) denied relief to the applicant indicating that there was insufficient evidence to support his claim. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant had the responsibility as an Air Force member to ensure Fitness Program standards are maintained and he failed to do so. While the applicant contends that the medical condition prevented successful completion of the contested FA’s, resulting in a referral EPR, there is insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s claim. An EPR is deemed accurate as written when it became part of the applicant’s record; the EPR represents a rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. In order to effectively challenge the report, this office must have supporting evidence from the rating chain to further clarify the need to make any modifications. Without supporting evidence to prove otherwise, we conclude the applicant’s failure to maintain fitness standards caused the referral EPR and no other circumstance. Since the fitness scores remain valid, a removal of the contested report should be not entertained. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The applicant had the responsibility as an Air Force member to ensure Fitness Program standards are maintained and he failed to do so. Because the applicant has separated from the Air Force, his records are unavailable for review in the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS); therefore, this office is unable to identify the FAs he references. The applicant could have consulted with authorities from the medical community and obtained documentation exempting him from appropriate components, thereby preventing the FA failures and referral EPR. In accordance with the guidance in effect at the time (AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program (dated 1 Jul 10) AFGM 4 (dated 26 Jun 12), “Upon receipt of a Medical Evaluation Board permanent exemption, a member is not subject to adverse personnel action for inability to take the FA.” The applicant provided no results of the MEB he claims to have undergone (AF IMT 356), and without supporting evidence to prove otherwise, we conclude the applicant’s failure to maintain fitness standards caused the failures and no other circumstance. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 31 Jan 14 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 filed timely. 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 (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. While the applicant has provided limited documentation indicating that he sought medical care for his medical condition, he has provided no evidence (AF Forms 422, Notification of Air Force Member’s Qualification Status, 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report, MEB evaluation board results) that would convince there was a causal relationship between his purported medical condition and contested FA failures. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. ________________________________________________________________ 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 2013-00751 in Executive Session on 30 Apr 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered AFBCMR Docket Number 2013-00751: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Feb 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, undated. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 15 Nov 13. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Jan 14. 1 2