RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-02043

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 	COUNSEL: NONE	 

	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His fitness assessment (FA) failure on 29 Jan 15 be removed from his record.

His administrative demotion to staff sergeant (SSgt, E-5) be void and his grade of technical sergeant (TSgt, E-6), with date of rank 1 Apr 11 be reinstated.

His referral enlisted performance report (EPR) for the period ending 30 Apr 15 be removed from his record.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received a third FA failure for failing to meet the run component time on the indoor track at Spangdahlem AB, GE.  This resulted in an administrative demotion to SSgt and the referral EPR.  However, the testing procedures were adjusted after the track was re-evaluated by the Civil Engineer Squadron (CES).  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former Air Force SSgt.  

He received a referral EPR for the reporting period ending 30 Apr 15.  The reason for the referral was letter of reprimand (LOR), unfavorable information file (UIF) and administrative demotion for FA failures.  

On 26 Jun 16, he was released from active duty with a narrative reason for separation of “reduction in force.” He served 15 years and 1 day of active duty service.  

The applicant provides Air Force Fitness Management System II (AFFMS II) printout dated 11 May 16, which shows he failed his FA on 29 Jan 15 with a composite score of 35.9.   

The applicant provides an e-mail dated 12 Nov 15, which states the indoor track was re-measured due to safety concerns from various agencies on base and in concert with the new track being measured.  However, there was no evidence confirming the inside track was longer at 16.33 laps.  The new testing lane was changed to the middle lane for 15.41 laps. 

AFI 36-2905, paragraph 1.5.1 states an airman who believes their FA score was in error or was unjust may submit an appeal to the Installation Commander, or equivalent.  The applicant has since separated and is not eligible to submit an appeal to the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB).  For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory opinions at Exhibits C, D, E and G.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2SSM recommends denial for removal of the FA dated 29 Jan 15.  The applicant did not follow the proper administrative remedies by submitting an appeal through the Installation Commander to the FAAB per AFI 36-2905.  Additionally, there was no proof provided by the CES identifying how long or short the indoor track was, nor documentation provided from the fitness assessment cell (FAC) specifying the applicant tested on the indoor track.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

In an additional advisory, AFPC/DP2SSM recommends updating the applicant’s FA history to exempt him from the aerobic component for the 29 Jan 15 FA.  However, they request the Board consider he did not provide substantial documentation from CES specifying errors with the track or that he tested on the indoor track.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPS2PE recommends denial for removal of the referral EPR. The applicant has not provided compelling evidence to substantiate the contested EPR was unjust or inaccurate as written.  The indoor track at Spangdahlem AB was not a part of the 15 bases identified for incorrectly measured tracks.   The complete advisory is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent copies of the Air Force evaluations to the applicant on 15 Sep 17 for comment (Exhibit F), but has received no response.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2SPP recommends denial for removal of the administrative demotion to SSgt and his grade of TSgt be restored.  The administrative demotion action as a result of the FA was procedurally correct and there were no irregularities.  The commander acted within their authority to demote the applicant from TSgt to SSgt for failure to maintain FA standards.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit G.   

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the additional Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 29 Jun 18 for comment (Exhibit H), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  AFPC/DP2SSM states the applicant did not exhaust administrative remedies by submitting an appeal to his commander through the FAAB; however, we are persuaded the applicant’s case is ripe for adjudication by the Board given he is no longer eligible to apply to the FAAB since he has been discharged from active duty.  While the applicant provides an e-mail indicating the procedures regarding the track were changed, he has not sustained his burden of proof that there was an error in the measurement of the track which resulted in his FA failure on 29 Jan 15.  Furthermore, as pointed out by AFPC/DPS2PE, the track at Spangdahlem AB, GE was not identified for having an incorrectly measured track.   In view of the above, we disagree with the AFPC/DP2SSM advisory dated 25 May 17 that the applicant’s FA on 29 Jan 15 be recalculated to exempt him from the aerobic component and find no reason to grant any of the requested relief.   Therefore, the Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of the AFPC/DP2SSM advisory dated 29 Jul 16, AFPC/DPS2PE and DP2SPP and find that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2016-02043 in Executive Session on 7 Aug 18:

 , Panel Chair
 , Panel Member
 , Panel Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following in Docket Number BC-2016-02043:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 16 May 16.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SSM, dated 29 Jul 16.
Exhibit D: Advisory opinion, AFPC/ DP2SSM, dated 25 May 17.
Exhibit E: Advisory opinion, AFPC/DPS2PE, dated 12 Jul 17.  
Exhibit F:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 15 Sep 17.
Exhibit G:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SPP, dated 20 Mar 18.  
Exhibit H:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 8 Jun 18.  

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.