RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02775 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His Fitness Assessments (FAs) dated 4 Apr 11 and 14 Nov 11, be void and removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). 2. His referral EPR for the period ending 16 Nov 11 be void and removed from his records. 3. His Promotion Sequence Number (PSN) for Cycle 11E6 to the grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt, E-6) be reinstated. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In Nov 11, he received a referral EPR for failure to meet fitness standards. The failed FAs were due to a year-long ankle injury which resulted in surgery and severe prolonged limitations in rehabilitative activities and physical fitness. His chain of command supported an Exception to Policy (ETP) for reinstatement of his PSN to the grade of TSgt. He submitted an application to the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB); however, his application was returned and it was recommended he forward his request to the Board. In support of his requests, the applicant provides a personal statement with a chronological sequence of events, copies of the ETP request for reinstatement of his promotion to the grade of TSgt, AF Forms 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSgt); AFFMS information, SF 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care; and AF Forms 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report. 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 TSgt having assumed that grade effective and with a Date of Rank (DOR) of 1 Nov 13. According to AF Form 469 dated 15 Mar 11, he was restricted from running more than 100 yards and any duties requiring high impact. The date of release from the restriction was 11 Apr 11. According to AF Form 469 dated 18 Aug 11, he was restricted from any duties requiring running, high impact to lower extremities, walking more than 50 yards, pushing or pulling against resistance with lower extremities, bending or twisting at the waist greater than 30 degrees and lifting of objects weighing more than 40 pounds. The date of release from the restriction was 12 Oct 11. According to AF Form 469 dated 25 Oct 11, he was restricted from running or walking more than a half mile at maximal effort, any duties requiring rapid or repetitive bending at the waist for maximal effort or repetitive bending of the forearms in the prone position. The date of release from the restriction was 15 Jan 12. He received a referral EPR for the period of 17 Nov 10 to 16 Nov 11, for failure to achieve a passing score on two FAs and was reprimanded by his commander. His EPR reflects that he was the Unit Program Fitness Monitor at the time. On 10 Dec 12, his wing commander recommended an ETP for reinstatement of his PSN to the grade of TSgt stating that while it was his opinion that the application of the referral EPR was correct due to the failed FA, the medical circumstances leading to his failure were grossly unjust and presented a unique and extreme case warranting an ETP for reinstatement of his PSN to the grade of TSgt. The applicant’s contested FA scores are as follows: Date Cardio AC Push- ups Sit- Ups Composite Score Rating 11/14/11 13.47/ 39.30 38.5/ 13.5 44/ 7.50 46/ 7.50 67.80 Unsatisfactory 04/04/11 Exempt 38.00 14.40 42/ 7.20 Exempt 72.00 Unsatisfactory According to his AF Forms 469 dated 15 Mar 11 and 25 Oct 11, he should have completed only the AC portion of the contested FAs. In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 36-2905, Air Force Fitness Program, dated 1 Jul 10, and Air Force Guidance Memorandum 2 (AFGM 2) dated 20 Dec 10, paragraph 2.1 and Attachment 14, a composite point total of 75 or greater is required to pass the FA with an overall satisfactory rating. Per paragraph 2.10.3, the composite score equals the total component points achieved multiplied by 100 and divided by the total possible points. ________________________________________________________________ On 7 Jan 14, the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB) disapproved the applicant’s request for removal of his failed FAs from the AFFMS stating that he should have tested within the limits of his profile. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the request for removal of the failed FAs dated 4 Apr 11 and 14 Nov 11 due to the lack of supporting evidence. After a thorough review of the documentation provided by the applicant, there is insufficient evidence to support his claim. He provided documentation reflecting that he had several appointments to seek attention for his sprained ankle, to include surgery. DPSIM can assume there is a possibility this could have affected the two FAs in discussion; however, there was no medical evaluation/official statement from the Primary Care Manager (PCM) which indicated that these pre-existing medical issues precluded him from achieving a passing FA. In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, AFGM 2, dated 20 Dec 10, paragraph 4.2.2. “Providers will list physical limitations on the AF Form 469. When physical limitations preclude the member from participating in fitness activities for greater than 30 days, the member will follow local policy to obtain an exercise prescription and determination of FA exemption. Unless the member is given a composite exemption, they will continue to prepare for and be assessed on non-exempt components of the FA.” IAW AFI 36-2905, AFGM 2, dated 1 Jul 11, paragraph 4.2.2., he should have only tested on the components of the FA that he was cleared for by his PCM. Instead, he tested on all components although he was not cleared to test on all components by his PCM. The complete DPSIM evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant's request for removal of the referral EPR based on the aforementioned recommendation of DPSIM. The applicant did file an appeal through the ERAB under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports; however, due to the referral report being for a fitness failure reason, the applicant was advised to process the request through the Board. DPSID contends that the evaluation was completed appropriately and within regulatory Air Force requirements. It is a Noncommissioned Officer’s (NCO) responsibility to adhere to all Air Force standards to include fitness. An evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. We contend that 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 unfairly based on knowledge available at the time. The applicant was on a waist only profile yet chose to test in all components resulting in the failure. Although, after the fact, he believes the failure should be removed, the fact remains that he voluntarily tested in all categories and failed. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOE states the applicant was tentatively selected for promotion to the grade of TSgt during Cycle 11E6. He received PSN 6329.0 which incremented on 1 Mar 12. However, he became ineligible and his PSN was removed when he received a referral EPR. He was subsequently selected for promotion to the grade of TSgt during Cycle 13E6 with a DOR of 1 Nov 13. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 25 Aug 14, the copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). As of this date, this office has not received a 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 to warrant removing the contested FAs, referral EPR or to reinstate his PSN to the grade of TSgt. We note that DPSIM states the applicant should have only tested on the components that he was cleared for by his PCM. However, even if we were inclined to change the record to show he only tested on the components he was cleared for, given that his AC scores of 72 and 67.5 were below the composite point total of 75 he still would not have received an overall satisfactory rating. While the ETP letter from his wing commander in support of his request is duly noted, we do not find this letter alone sufficient to grant the requested relief. Therefore, other than noted above, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force OPR’s and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an error or injustice. Should the applicant provide medical evidence that reflects he should have been exempt from the AC portion of the test we may be willing to reconsider his requests. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence that he was treated differently than others similarly situated we find no equitable basis to grant any of 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-2013-02775 in Executive Session on 30 Sep 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-02775 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 May 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 29 May 14, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 1 Aug 14. Exhibit E. E-mail, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 21 Aug 14. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Aug 14. 1 2