RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01186 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The Fitness Assessments (FAs) dated 24 Sep 10, 6 Dec 10, and 3 Mar 11, be removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). 2. The referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 16 Apr 10 through 15 Apr 11, be removed from his records. 3. He receive supplemental promotion consideration for promotion cycle 12E6. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. He was not able to pass the contested FAs due to pre- existing medical conditions. 2. The referral “2” EPR was rendered as a result of the contested FA failures; however, a medical provider has since concluded medical conditions caused his failures. 3. As a result of the referral EPR, he was ineligible for promotion and was not considered during the promotion cycle 12E6. Since his medical conditions were the contributing factors for the contested FA failures, he should receive supplement promotion consideration. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant served in the Regular Air Force in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) during the matter under review. On 24 Sep 10, the applicant participated in the contested FA, and attained an overall composite score of 57.50, resulting in an unsatisfactory rating. On 6 Dec 10, the applicant participated in the contested FA, and attained an overall composite score of 61.20, resulting in an unsatisfactory rating. On 5 Jan 11, the applicant’s commander issued him a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) due the applicant’s second consecutive FA failure on 6 Dec 10. On 3 Mar 11, the applicant participated in the contested FA, and attained an overall composite score of 69.30, resulting in an unsatisfactory rating. On 8 Mar 11, the applicant was evaluated by an Ear, Nose, and Throat (ENT) specialist who identified problems of sleep apnea, chronic tonsillitis, chronic nasal obstruction secondary to nasal septal deviation, turbinate hypertrophy, and allergic rhinitis. On 23 Mar 11, the applicant’s commander issued him an LOR due to the applicant’s third consecutive FA failure on 3 Mar 11. On 9 Apr 11, the applicant had a sleep study which revealed he had moderate to severe sleep apnea. On 4 May 11, the applicant had a tonsillectomy for his chronic tonsillitis and septoplasty with turbinate resection for his nasal breathing problems. On 15 Jun 11, the contested EPR was referred to the applicant for a “does not meet” standards rating and comments in Block III, Fitness. On 24 Nov 13, the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB), considered and denied a request from the applicant on the basis that stress was not a limiting factor that prevents successful completion of the fitness assessment. On 1 Feb 14, the applicant was honorably discharged for intradepartmental transfer. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C, D, E, and F. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the contested FAs due to the lack of supporting evidence. The applicant contends he had medical conditions that prevented successful completion of the contested FAs; however, he presents no documentation correlating with the time period (2009) for which he claims the medical problems began. Furthermore, the documentation he did provide details visits, tests, and a statement from a doctor only indicating there was a “possibility” the medical conditions “may have” negatively impacted his ability to successfully pass the contested FAs. After a thorough review of the applicant’s records, they were unable to verify the applicant had medical conditions during the time period of the contended FAs. The applicant provided character reference letters, three of which detail the applicant’s struggle with stress related to his job and/or personal life. However, he has not provided clear evidence that his medical condition directly affected his performance during the contested FAs. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request for removal of the referral EPR based on the recommendation of AFPC/DPSIM and given the lack of substantiating documentation; the referral fitness comment and marking in Section III should be considered valid and appropriate as record. The applicant provided only his personal view of the circumstances with insufficient evidence to demonstrate an error or injustice. To change this report would be an injustice to other airmen which have consulted with the appropriate channels and have received proper guidance regarding the fitness program, consulted with the medical community for proper medical profiles, and other airmen who have met the Air Force’s regulatory requirements. The evaluation was completed appropriately and within regulatory Air Force requirements. An evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered; once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record. The applicant has not substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on their knowledge at the time. Due to the applicant failing the contested FAs and absent evidence to prove otherwise, the referral report, as rendered, is accurate and was referred in accordance with applicable policies and procedures. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIDE evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOE defers to the recommendations of AFPC/DPSIM and AFPC/DPSID concerning removal of the contested FAs and referral EPR. However, should the Board favorably consider these requests; the applicant should receive supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 12E6. In this respect, they note that cycle 12E6 was the first time the contested referral report was used in the promotion process. His EPR score was 118.80 his total score was 319.30, and the score required for selection for promotion was 329.83. Should the referral EPR be removed from his records, his EPR score would be 135.00 points, resulting in an overall score of 335.00 points, thus, rendering him a select, pending promotion data verification and recommendation by his commander. The applicant was considered for promotion to technical sergeant during cycle 13E6 and rendered a nonselect. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E. BCMR Medical Consultant recommends removing the contested FAs. Under the AF Fitness Assessment Program, there is a chain of several designated responsibilities outlined, from the individual member, the health care provider, fitness assessment monitors, and commanders, among others. Precariously missing from the applicant's case file is any documentation from a military health care provider, either clearing or exempting him from certain portions of the FA, or identifying a diagnosable illness or injury that could interfere with his FA. The applicant had the opportunity to take his civilian surgeon's analysis to his military providers or to obtain an evaluation from a military health care provider. However, acknowledging the applicant's statement that he was covered under “TRICARE Remote,” he likely performed duties geographically remote [usually 50 miles or greater] from any servicing military medical organization. Thus, he was likely relegated to either a network civilian provider to serve as his Primary Care Manager or other TRICARE-authorized healthcare providers. Unfortunately, the applicant's effort to obtain a medical assessment, treatment, and medical documentation occurred only after his FA failures. Noting the possible clandestine nature of the applicant's obstructed airways [nasal and oropharynx], which he reportedly believed to be "only allergies," it is reasonable to conclude that he may not have been aware of the true extent or nature of his medical limitations in order to generate an AF Form 469 or AF Form 422 restricting or exempting certain portions of his FA. The case file indicates he sought medical care only after being directed by his First Sergeant. At the same time, poor aerobic conditioning, while under the physical exertion of running, may also manifest through the “difficulty” breathing;” as the breathing which would likely have been largely oral, by-passing any possible nasal obstruction to breathing caused by [septa] deviation of nasal turbinates. Additionally, no pulmonary function testing has been accomplished to determine if the applicant experienced exercise-induced reversible airway hyper-responsiveness; which is also known to manifest after a sustained period of exertion and mouth breathing. In rendering a recommended decision to the Board, there must be sufficient evidence of an error or injustice to warrant the desired change of the record. Previous reviewers have recommended against granting relief. However, in consideration of the totality of circumstances surrounding the applicant's case, to include his lack of ready access to a military medical installation familiar with fitness policies, his false assumption he was suffering from allergies, the recommendation of his First Sergeant, and his favorable fitness scores since receiving treatment of probable contributory causes (per his ENT surgeon), favorable consideration is recommended. However, the applicant is reminded that exemption of any portion of the FA for 12 months or more may be the cause for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and possible separation, if the condition precluding completion of the exempted portion is also disqualifying for continued military service. A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit F. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations and the BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation were forwarded to the applicant on 19 Jul 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit G). 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case. While the majority notes the comments of AFPC/DPSIM indicating that there is insufficient evidence indicating he has not provided clear evidence that his medical condition directly affected his performance during the contested fitness assessments (FA), the majority believes a preponderance of the evidence supports granting relief. Based on the medical consultant’s review, the majority agrees that it is reasonable to conclude the applicant did not have appropriate military medical intervention in determining the relevant fitness exemptions based on his medical condition and, because of this and in view of the aggressive treatment required of the applicant’s condition and given the fact that said treatment seems to have resolved his fitness difficulties, the majority is convinced by a preponderance of the evidence that his medical condition likely adversely impacted his ability to attain passing scores on the contested FAs. Therefore, the majority believes the contested FAs should be declared void and removed from his records. Furthermore, in view of the fact the applicant was furnished two letters of reprimand (LOR) and a referral enlisted performance report (EPR) as a direct result of the contested FAs, the majority believes it also appropriate to recommend the LORs and referral EPR be declared void and removed from his records and that his corrected records be provided supplemental consideration for promotion for all promotion cycles where the referral EPR was a matter of record. Therefore, the majority recommends correcting the applicant’s records as indicated below. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that: a. The Fitness Assessments (FA), dated 24 Sep 10, 6 Dec 10, and 3 Mar 11, be declared void and removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). b. The letters of reprimand (LOR), dated 5 Jan 11 and 23 Mar 11, be declared void and removed from his records. c. The referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 16 Apr 10 through 15 Apr 11, be declared void and removed from his records. d. His corrected records receive supplemental promotion consideration for any promotion cycles for which the referral EPR was a matter of record. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-01186 in Executive Session on 19 Aug 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member By majority vote, the panel voted to grant the requested relief. xxxxxx voted to deny the application and has submitted a minority report, which is at Exhibit H. The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013- 01186 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Mar 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 24 Nov 13. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDE, dated 11 Apr 14. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 16 Apr 14. Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 3 Jul 14. Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Jul 14. Exhibit H. Minority Report, dated 21 Aug 14.