RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 				DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-00270 

    							COUNSEL:  NONE 

							HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His failing Fitness Assessment scores on 22 Feb 13, 23 Feb 13 (Retest), 23 May 13, and 26 Aug 13 be declared void and removed from his record. 

2.  The Air Force Fitness Management System II (AFFMS II) system be updated to reflect passing scores for his FAs on 22 Feb 13 and 26 Aug 13. 

3.  His Letters of Reprimand (LORs) dated 25 Feb 13, 7 Jun 13, and 27 Aug 13 be declared void and removed from his record.

4.  His Unfavorable Information File (UIF) be removed from his record. 

5.  His referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) covering the period 20 Aug 12 through 28 Aug 13 be declared void and removed from his record.  

6.  He be reinstated onto active duty in the grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt), with his original Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) of 21 Jun 00.

7.  He receive back pay with full benefits and allowances based upon rates for the Travis Air Force Base, CA, area, to include basic pay, basic allowance for housing (BAH), basic allowance for subsistence (BAS), flight pay, clothing allowance, to include any associated increases since his discharge, and all leave.   

8.  He be reassigned to the 22nd Airlift Squadron at Travis Air Force Base, CA, with all moving expenses paid by the Air Force.  

9.  He receive supplemental promotion to the grade of master sergeant (MSgt) for the year 14E7, after his record is updated with the appropriate time in grade (TIG) and time in service (TIS).  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was unfairly discharged for repeatedly failing his FAs after not completing the aerobic running portion of the FA fast enough.  After being involuntarily discharged, the Air Force determined the track on which he was tested was 96 feet too long and notified him he passed the FAs in question.  His 23 May 13 FA was an invalid test, since it would never have been required except for the Air Force error, and it should be removed as well.  His record should show he has not failed an FA since 15 May 12.  Therefore, his involuntary discharge for failure to meet the fitness requirements in AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, was completely unjustified. 

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 21 Jun 00.

On 21 May 12, the applicant’s commander issued him a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for scoring a 72.50, an overall rating of unsatisfactory, on his 15 May 12 FA.  

On 25 Feb 13, the applicant’s commander issued him a LOR for scoring a 74.10, an overall rating of unsatisfactory, on his 22 Feb 13 FA, noting that was the applicant’s second documented FA failure within the previous 24 months. 

On 7 Jun 13, the applicant’s commander issued him a LOR for scoring a 74.40, an overall rating of unsatisfactory, on his 23 May 13 FA, noting that was the applicant’s third documented FA failure within the previous 24 months.  The commander established an Unfavorable Information File (UIF), and placed his LOR in the UIF. 

On 27 Aug 13, the applicant’s commander issued him a LOR for scoring a 74.40, an overall rating of unsatisfactory, on his 26 Aug 13 FA, noting that was the applicant’s fourth documented FA failure within the previous 24 months.  The LOR was placed in the applicant’s UIF.  

On 3 Oct 13, the applicant’s commander notified him she was recommending him for discharge for “Unsatisfactory Performance:  Failure to Maintain Minimum Fitness Standards.”  The reason for taking his action was, based upon a minimum passing score of 75:

	a.  On or about 26 Aug 13, the applicant scored 74.40 (unsatisfactory) on this FA. 

	b.  On or about 23 May 13, the applicant scored 74.40 (unsatisfactory) on this FA. 

	c.  On or about 22 Feb 13, the applicant scored 74.10 (unsatisfactory) on this FA. 

	d.  On or about 15 May 12, the applicant scored 72.50 (unsatisfactory) on this FA. 

On 15 Oct 13, the applicant’s commander recommended him for discharge.  The discharge package was reviewed and determined to be legally sufficient; the applicant acknowledged he was afforded the opportunity to meet with legal counsel and to submit statements on his own behalf; the applicant waived his right to an administrative discharge board.

On 22 Oct 13, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged for failure to meet minimum fitness standards without probation of rehabilitation. 

On 28 Oct 13, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, with a narrative reason for separation of “Physical Standards,” and was credited with 13 years, 4 months, and 8 days of active service.   

On 18 Nov 13, the applicant was paid for 60 days of accrued leave, and his remaining 9.5 days of accrued leave were lost. 

On 23 Feb 17, AFPC/DP3S notified the applicant the track used for FAs at Travis Air Force Base, CA caused Airmen to run an additional 96 feet during FA assessment; as a result, his FA scores on 22 Feb 13 and 26 Aug 13 had been recalculated; and, his recalculated composites scores were 76.7 and 77.0 respectively (both passing scores.)  

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/DP3S recommends partially granting the applicant’s request, indicating there is evidence of an error or an injustice.  In August 2016, the Air Force determined that several run/walk courses used in the cardio portion of the FA were measured incorrectly, resulting in failed assessments.  Individuals who were adversely affected were notified their aerobic score would be adjusted accordingly.  Based on a review of the documentation in his master personnel records, the applicant's discharge was based solely on failure to meet minimum fitness standards.  The two fitness assessments have been recalculated to produce passing scores on the applicant's fitness tests.  Therefore, the applicant’s discharge is no longer valid.  AFPC/DP3S recommends:

a.  Reinstate the applicant onto active duty in the grade of technical sergeant with back pay and entitlements (except leave), and revoke and remove from his record his current DD Form 214, dated 29 Oct 13, restoring his original TAFMSD of 21 Jun 00.  

	b.  Disapprove the applicant’s request for reinstatement of leave held at the time of discharge.  The applicant was paid for 60 days of accrued leave on 18 Nov 13.  

	c.  Update the AFFMS II to reflect the applicant passed his FAs on 22 Feb 13 and 26 Aug 13, each with a Fitness Level of “Satisfactory.”  Remove the applicant’s 23 May 13 FA from AFFMS II since the test was invalid because it was not required.  It would not have been required if his 22 Feb 13 FA been correctly assessed as "Satisfactory."  Upon reinstatement to active duty, allow the applicant 42 days acclimation period before his next FA. 

	d.  Declare void and remove from his record the applicant’s three LORs dated 25 Feb 13, 7 Jun 13, and 27 Aug 13, his UIF, and any associated codes in the Military Personnel Data System associated with failed FAs.

	e.  Declare void and remove his referral EPR covering the period 20 Aug 12 through 28 Aug 13 from his record.  Because it was substantiated the applicant should have originally received “Satisfactory” scores, the reason for referral no longer exists. They recommend approval to void the evaluation and replace it with an AF Form 77, which states “Not rated for the above period. Evaluation was removed by Order of the SecAF.”

	f.  Give the applicant 60 days after reinstatement to prepare for promotion testing.  Once his personnel record is corrected, and his promotion test results are available, provide the applicant supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of MSgt for promotion cycle 14E7, and if not selected, for each subsequent E7 promotion cycle.  

	g.  Reassign the applicant to his prior AFSC, after proper recertification and/or waiver, as appropriate.  

	h.  Assign the applicant to a geographical location based upon the needs of the Air Force in his assigned AFSC.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP3S evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In further support of his original request, the applicant submitted a rebuttal response to the AFPC/DP3S evaluation in which he takes exception to three of their recommendations.  First, he clarifies he did not request reimbursement of the 60 days of leave he sold upon his discharge, only the 9.5 days of leave he lost.  Second, he disagrees with the recommendation to assign him anywhere but Travis AFB, CA because that is where he was stationed when the error occurred, and it seems more beneficial for him to return to training on the C-5 than to start with a new aircraft.  Finally, he disagrees with the recommendation to have him continue on active duty at his current place of residence rather than at Travis AFB, CA, because he wants to receive the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) associated with Travis AFB, CA instead of his current address.  (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 with respect to the applicant’s requests to be reassigned to the 22nd Airlift Squadron at Travis Air Force Base, CA, with all moving expenses paid and receive the associated back pay using Travis Air Force Base, CA, rates.   We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include his rebuttal response to the advisory opinion in judging the merits of the case; however, we are not persuaded the applicant has been the victim of an error of injustice concerning these requests.  While we acknowledge the applicant’s desire to return to Travis AFB, CA, we believe upon his reinstatement, the applicant’s assignment should be based upon the needs of the Air Force using normal assignment procedures.  In view of the above, we find no basis to grant the relief sought in this portion of the application.

4.  Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error to warrant granting the applicant’s remaining requests.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission, to include his rebuttal response to the advisory opinion, in judging the merits of the case, agree with the opinions and recommendations of AFPC/DP3S, and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice.  We note AFPC/DP3S recommends disapproval of the applicant’s request for reinstatement of leave held at the time of discharge because he was paid for 60 days of accrued leave.  However, in his rebuttal to the advisory opinion, the applicant asserts he did not request reimbursement of the 60 days of leave he sold upon his discharge, only the 9.5 days of leave he lost and we believe any leave lost beyond 60 days should be restored.  Regarding the referral EPR, because it was substantiated the applicant should have originally received “Satisfactory” scores; the reason for referral no longer exists therefore the requested relief to remove the EPR from his record is warranted.  In addition, AFPC/DP3S recommends the applicant be allowed a 42-day reacclimation period after reinstatement to active duty before undergoing a fitness assessment, and a 60-day period after reinstatement to prepare for promotion testing.  We note these timeframes are in accordance with the governing Air Force instructions for the fitness program and the military personnel testing system; however, because the applicant’s original separation date is over three years ago we believe he should be allowed a full 120-day period before either undergoing a fitness assessment or preparing for promotion testing.  Therefore, we recommend the applicant's records be corrected as indicated below.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show:

	a.  He did not separate from active duty on 28 October 2013, but continued on active duty at his current place of residence, pending further orders.

	b.  Any leave lost above and beyond the 60-days of leave he sold back in conjunction with his separation be restored to his leave account.  

	c.  Update the applicant’s fitness records in AFFMS II to reflect:
	1.  His Fitness Level on his 22 February 2013 Fitness Assessment was rated “Satisfactory.”

	2.  His Fitness Level on his 26 August 2013 Fitness Assessment was rated “Satisfactory.”

	3.  The Fitness Assessments on 23 February 2013 and on 23 May 2013 be voided and removed from AFFMS II.

	d.  Allow the applicant 120 days of active service reacclimation time after the date of reinstatement before he is required to take a Fitness Assessment. 

	e.  Declare void and remove from his record three Letters of Reprimand, dated 25 February 2013, 7 June 2013, and 27 August 2013, his Unfavorable Information File, and any associated codes in the Military Personnel Data System associated with failed Fitness Assessments.

	f.  Declare void and remove the referral EPR covering the period 20 Aug 12 through 28 Aug 13, from his record and replace it with an AF Form 77 which states “Not rated for the above period. Evaluation was removed by Order of the SecAF.”

	g.  Allow the applicant 120 days of active service after his reinstatement to prepare for Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) testing.  When his personnel files are corrected, and his WAPS test results are available, provide the applicant supplemental promotion consideration for the 14E7 promotion cycle, and if not selected, for each subsequent E7 promotion selection board. 

	h.  Reassign the applicant to his prior Air Force Specialty Codes, after recertification and/or waiver, as appropriate.  

	i.  Assign the applicant to a geographical location based upon the needs of the Air Force in his assigned AFSC, using the normal Air Force assignment process.  

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2017-00270 in Executive Session on 25 May 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

All members voted to correct the records as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Feb 17, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP3S, dated 4 Apr 17.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Mar 17.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, not dated.  

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.