RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03249 XXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The duplicate Fitness Assessment (FA), dated 21 Jan 07, be removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). (Administratively Corrected – removed by Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB)) 2. The FAs, dated 15 Jul 12 and 10 Feb 13, be declared void and removed from the AFFMS. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The FAs, dated 15 Jul 12 and 10 Feb 13, were untimely recorded and should be considered invalid. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On the date the application was submitted the applicant was serving as a Staff Sergeant (E-5) in the Air Force Reserve. On 15 Jul 12, the applicant participated in the contested FA and attained an unsatisfactory score (54.70) completing all four components. The FA was conducted 41 days after the 3 Jun 12 unsatisfactory FA. On 10 Feb 13, the applicant participated in the contested FA and attained an unsatisfactory score (46.90) completing all four components. The FA was conducted 27 days after the 13 Jan 13 unsatisfactory FA. A similar request was considered by the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB). The FAAB removed the duplicate FA, dated 21 Jan 07 from the AFFMS but found insufficient evidence to warrant removal of the FAs, dated 15 Jul 12 and 10 Feb 13, and denied this portion of the request. The applicant’s last nine FA results are as follows: Date Days Since Last Test Composite Score Rating 9 Feb 14 62 46.90 Unsatisfactory 8 Dec 13 146 72.80 Unsatisfactory 14 Jul 13 69 7.50 Unsatisfactory 5 May 13 83 67.90 Unsatisfactory *10 Feb 13 27 46.90 Unsatisfactory 13 Jan 13 76 56.90 Unsatisfactory 28 Oct 12 104 50.90 Unsatisfactory *15 Jul 12 41 54.70 Unsatisfactory 3 Jun 12 69 61.90 Unsatisfactory* Contested FA In accordance with AFI 36-2905 AFGM4 (26 Jun 12), Attachment 1, Section 14, RegAF, AFR, and ANG (Title 10) Airmen must retest within 90 days following an Unsatisfactory FA. Unit Commanders may not mandate Airmen retest any sooner than the end of the 90-day reconditioning period; however, Airmen may volunteer to do so. Retesting in the first 42 days after an Unsatisfactory FA requires Unit Commander approval since recognized medical guidelines recommend 42 days as the minimum timeframe to recondition from Unsatisfactory to Satisfactory status in a manner that reduces risk of injury. It is the Airman's responsibility to ensure that he/she retests before the 90-day reconditioning period expires (non-currency begins on the 91st day). This guidance supersedes guidelines established in AFI 36-2905 (dated 1 July 2010), paragraph 2.11.1.2. Also AFI 36-2905 AFGM5 (3 Jan 13) uses the exact same language for retesting timelines. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial, as the applicant did not provide any medical documentation to conclude she had a medical condition that precluded her from passing the FA. Applicant also did not provide an invalidation memorandum from her commander requesting the FAs, dated 15 Jul 12 and 10 Feb 13, be removed from AFFMS. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 21 Feb 14 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). ________________________________________________________________ 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 an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and have concluded that she has not met her burden of proving that she has been the victim of an error or injustice. While the applicant contends the contested FAs were “untimely recorded,” she does not explain why she believes they were. However, it would appear that she believes the contested FAs should be removed because she was not allotted the full 42-day reconditioning period to re-test following an unsatisfactory FA. The AFFMS confirms that in both instances she did in fact test before the end of her reconditioning period. However, based upon the presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs and without evidence to the contrary, we must assume that she requested, and her unit commander approved, her requests to test prior to the expiration of the allotted 42-day reconditioning periods. According to the AFFMS, the applicant has a history of unsatisfactory FA scores, with her last successful FA occurring on 5 Jun 11, indicating her inability to consistently meet fitness standards. We find this further evident by the fact that on 9 Feb 14, after being provided a 62-day reconditioning period, she completed an FA, and received the same overall composite score, i.e., “46.90 – unsatisfactory,” as she did on the contested 10 Feb 13 FA. In view of this and in the absence of any evidence that had she been allotted the 42-day reconditioning period, she would have successfully completed the contested FAs, 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 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 BC-2013-03249 in Executive Session on 24 Sep 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: XXXXXXXX, Chair XXXXXXXX, Member XXXXXXXX, Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Jun 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 30 Dec 13, w/atchs. Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Feb 14. 1