RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02463 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His promotion to the grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt, E-6) be reinstated. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In December 2011, he was selected for promotion to the grade of TSgt with a Projected Sequence Number (PSN) of 306. On 6 January 2012, he failed a Fitness Assessment (FA) due to documented injuries which began in 1998 resulting in several surgeries to his left shoulder. After his FA failure, his commander initiated Control Roster (CR) action which canceled his PSN even though he was being scheduled for another surgery to resolve his medical issues. His grade of TSgt should be reinstated due to the injustice of the CR action. In a letter dated 17 December 2013, his medical provider stated he had a medical condition that precluded him from achieving a passing score in a non-exempt portion of the 6 January 2012 FA. On 9 May 2014, the 20th Fighter Wing Commander (20 FW/CC) approved the removal of the 6 January 2012 FA from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 1 January 2015, the applicant was retired in the grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt, E-5). He was credited with 20 years and 3 days of active duty service. According to AF IMT 1058, Unfavorable Information File Action, dated 13 January 2012, the applicant was placed on the CR for the 6 January 2012 failed FA, his second poor/unsatisfactory FA in 24 months. On 21 February 2012, the applicant received an Article 15, violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for dereliction in the performance of his duties in that he failed to follow procedural instructions according to technical orders. He was reduced to the grade of Senior Airman (SrA, E- 4), suspended through 4 September 2012. The applicant received a referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period ending 5 December 2012. The basis of the referral EPR was the applicant received an Article 15 for dereliction in the performance of his duties. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. The applicant was ineligible for promotion during cycle 11E6 due to placement on the CR. He was considered and tentatively selected for promotion to the grade of TSgt during the January 2012 in-system supplemental promotion process for cycle 11E6 and received a PSN of 301.9 which incremented on 1 August 2011. However, in the case of supplemental promotions, selectees are projected for promotion with a Date of Rank (DOR) and effective date on the first of the month following the month in which they are selected. In the applicant’s case, his projected DOR and effective date was 1 February 2012. However, he became ineligible for promotion when he was placed on the CR in January 2012 for failure to maintain fitness standards on two occasions within a 24-month period. His PSN was removed In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 36- 2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Program, Table 1.1., Rule 5. On 9 May 2014, the applicant’s commander removed the 6 January 2012 failed FA. However, the other failed FA remained and the CR action was not removed. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial. There is insufficient evidence to determine if the applicant was unjustly placed on the CR. Although his FA was removed, the commander did not accomplish CR removal actions on an AF Form 1058, Unfavorable Information File Action, IAW AFI 36-2907, Unfavorable Information file (UIF) Program, paragraph 2.5.1. IAW AFI 36-2907, paragraph 2.1., the CR is a rehabilitative tool for commanders to use. Commanders use the CR to set up a six month observation period for individuals whose duty performance is substandard or who fail to meet or maintain Air Force standards of conduct, bearing and integrity on or off duty. The commander was within his authority to place the applicant on a CR for failing to maintain standards. Even though the 6 January 2012 FA was removed, the applicant would remain under the CR unless the commander initiated CR removal actions. On 13 January 2012, the applicant received an AF IMT 1058 accompanied by a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) dated 13 January 2012 for failure to meet minimum components on his FA, and his second FA failure in 24 months. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the AF IMT 1058 and stated he intended to provide information to be considered before a final decision was made. The 6 January 2012 FA was removed; however he still had another failed FA on record. Additionally, the applicant received an Article 15, AF Form 3070A, dated 5 March 2012, due to failure to follow instructions. The Article 15 was mentioned on his referral EPR for the period from 6 December 2011 to 5 December 2012. On 6 June 2013, the applicant received another Article 15, AF Form 3070A, due to failure to follow instructions. This Article 15 was mentioned on his referral EPR for the period from 6 December 2012 to 5 December 2013. Since the applicant received an Article 15 in 2012 and 2013, the UIF was still valid. 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 30 June 2014 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). 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 an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of this case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility 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 a letter from his commander at the time in support of his request we would be willing to reconsider his application. In view of the above and 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 BC-2014-02463 in Executive Session on 6 August 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 June 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 5 December 2014. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 8 June 2015. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 June 2015.