RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03826

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her rank of technical sergeant (E-6) be restored and she have the opportunity to test for master sergeant (E-7).

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The command chain of leadership responsible for her demotion failed 
to consider her full military career and medical issues prior to recommending her for demotion.  

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 24 Jul 96.

On 6 Apr 11, the applicant received an unsatisfactory Fitness Assessment (FA) composite score of 63.00 (satisfactory composite score: ≥ 75.00).  

On 11 Apr 11, according to documents submitted by the applicant, she received a memorandum for record (MFR) from her section commander regarding her verbal counseling relating to her second FA failure in a 24 month period.  

On 15 Jul 11, the applicant received a satisfactory FA composite score of 86.67.

On 28 Nov 11, the applicant was rendered an enlisted performance report (EPR) for the time period 29 Sep 10 thru 28 Sep 11, with an overall performance assessment rating of “5”.

On 22 Feb 12, the applicant received an unsatisfactory FA composite score of 74.00.

On 17 May 12, the applicant received a satisfactory FA composite score of 76.00.
On 5 Nov 12, the applicant was rendered an EPR for the time period 29 Sep 11 thru 28 Sep 12, with an overall performance assessment rating of “5”.

On 16 Nov 12, the applicant received an unsatisfactory FA composite score of 73.33.

On 28 Nov 12, according to documents submitted by the applicant, she was issued an AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report, exempting her from repetitive high impact activities to lower extremities for more than 100 yards, no repetitive weight-bearing activities using upper extremities against resistance, no walking more than 100 yards, no stooping, no squatting, expiring 28 Feb 13.  

On 4 Dec 12, according to documents submitted by the applicant, she was rendered a letter of reprimand (LOR) for failing her 16 Nov 12 FA.  

On 18 Jan 13, the applicant received an excellent FA composite score of 90.33.  

On 3 Jun 13, the applicant received an unsatisfactory FA composite score of 72.50.

On 24 Jun 13, according to documents submitted by the applicant, she was notified of administrative demotion action by her commander to demote her to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) for failure to keep fit.  Specifically, she failed to maintain a satisfactory composite FA score of 75.00 on 14 separate occasions.  

On 27 Jun 13, according to documents submitted by the applicant, she submitted a reply requesting withdrawal of the proposed action. 

The command staff judge advocate (SJA) provided the demotion authority with a legal review of the administrative demotion action against the applicant, finding the demotion package both factually and legally sufficient to support the commander’s recommendation, and that the applicant was provided all her due rights process. 

On 16 Jul 13, according to documents submitted by the applicant, she was administratively demoted to staff sergeant with a date of rank (DOR) effective 16 Jul 13.  

On 13 Aug 13, according to documents submitted by the applicant, she was issued an AF Form 469, exempting her from all FA composite events except sit-ups and the abdominal circumference measurement.  Additionally, the AF Form 469 identified that she was pending a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) to determine her medical fitness for continued worldwide duty and retention.  The AF Form 469 had an expiration date of 13 Aug 14. 

On 16 Aug 13, according to documents submitted by the applicant, she was informed the appellate authority denied her appeal of her administrative demotion.  

On 27 Aug 13, the applicant received a satisfactory FA composite score of 86.33. 

On 11 Sep 13, according to documents submitted by the applicant, she received a LOR for failing to change her ID card and wear the appropriate uniform (reduced rank on ABU) in a timely manner.  

On 4 Nov 13, according to documents submitted by the applicant, she appealed to have her rank to E-6 restored.  

On 17 Jan 14, the applicant was rendered a referral EPR for the time period 27 Sep 12 thru 12 Oct 13, for failure to meet fitness standards, with an overall performance assessment rating of “3”.

On 25 Feb 14, the applicant received an unsatisfactory FA composite score of 72.67.  

On 21 Aug 15, Special Order No. AC – 008745 was issued approving the applicant’s discharge effective 31 Jul 16, with an effective date of retirement being 1 Aug 16, to be credited with 20 years, and 7 days of active service. 
 
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP3SP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  On 24 Jun 13, the applicant received notification of demotion action under AFI 36-2502, Enlisted Airman Promotion/Demotion Program, Failure to Keep Fit.  Specifically, the applicant failed 3 Fitness Assessments (FAs) within a 15-month period.  Additionally, the applicant had failed 14 of the 24 FAs she had completed over the past 9 years.  She believes that medical issues were the cause of her failed FAs.  Despite her contentions, they note that she was able to pass every other FA (and most of the scores were well above the minimum required).  She was demoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) with a new date of rank (DOR) and effective date of 16 Jul 13.  In accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2502, airmen may be demoted for failing to maintain or demonstrate the ability and willingness to attain physical standards.  If the commander has sufficient reason to initiate demotion action, use the entire military record in deciding whether demotion is appropriate.  IAW AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, Unit Commanders or equivalent may take adverse administrative action upon a member’s unsatisfactory fitness score on an official FA.  They opined that the demotion action taken against the applicant was procedurally correct and there is no evidence of any irregularities or that the case was mishandled in any way.  The applicant’s commander acted within her authority to demote the applicant from E-6 to E-5 for her failure to maintain fitness standards.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP3SP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant refutes virtually every point made by the OPR and argues her commanders and supervisors did not comply with Air Force Instruction guidance in her administrative demotion action.  Specifically, she contends she was not allowed to present her appeal package to the demotion authority, her entire military record was not considered, only her entire fitness record was considered in her administrative demotion action.  She argues her unit does not have an adequate and safe physical training (PT) program.  Additionally, she opined she did not trust anyone in her leadership chain, to include the command staff judge advocate (SJA), referring to their legal review of her demotion action case stating that it was both factually and legally sufficient to support her commander’s recommendation to demote her.  In support of her response, the applicant provides copies of her AF Forms 469 and character reference letters from officers in her chain of command during the matter in question.  

A complete copy of the applicant’s response to the Air Force Evaluation with attachments is located at Exhibit E.  

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, to include her rebuttal; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  Specifically, we are not compelled to grant the requested relief because there is no supporting evidence or corroborating statements of the applicant’s contentions that the command chain of leadership responsible for her demotion failed to consider her full military career and medical issues prior to recommending her for demotion.  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 BC-2015-03826 in Executive Session on 21 Jul 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03826 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Aug 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP3SP, dated 27 Jan 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Apr 16.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, received 9 May 16, w/atchs.