RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-03220

 	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING: YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1. Her referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) with a closeout date of 30 Jan 14 be removed from her record.

2. She be reinstated into the Air Force Reserve (AFR).

3. As an alternative, she be given retirement points/years in order to secure an AFR retirement.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She passed the Fitness Assessment (FA) within the 59-day extension period; however, the error occurred when the referral OPR was placed into her records, which made her ineligible for promotion and she was subsequently discharged from the AFR.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former major who served in the AFR.  Her last five (5) FA scores are as follows:

	Test Date		Composite Score		Fitness Level

	22 Mar 14			89.90			Satisfactory
	26 Jan 14			79.20			Unsatisfactory
	9 Jan 13			90.00			Excellent
	6 Mar 12			86.90			Satisfactory
	19 Apr 09			86.25			Good

AFI 36-2406, , Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, dated 2 Jan 13, paragraph 1.12.6.4 and 1.12.6.4.1, states, “If an incident or event occurs, that reflects a departure from standards and are derogatory in nature, between the time an annual or initial evaluation closes-out and the time it becomes a matter of record that is of such serious significance that inclusion in that evaluation is warranted, an extension of the close-out date may be requested by the unit commander IAW paragraph 1.13.”  For fitness, an extension may be requested to authorize an Airman to test again to meet the standard if justification is warranted.  An extension to document a failure for fitness is not authorized.  Send requests for extension, to HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP (or appropriate ANG/AFR office stated in paragraph 1.15. with a copy to the servicing personnel office, who in turn will forward the request to appropriate office of primary responsibility (OPR) listed in Table 1.1.).  This must be done in a timely manner, and a commander-initiated email is acceptable. 

On 26 Jan 14, she received an unsatisfactory fitness level and on 22 Mar 14, she received a satisfactory fitness level.  On 30 Jan 14, she received a referral OPR for not meeting standards.   For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPTS recommends denying the application.  The applicant passed her FA test within the 59-day window, however, the governing instructions states that unit commanders may request closeout date extensions of up to 59 days for officers to ensure resolution of any administrative, or other significant issues.  The applicant is not automatically given the 59-day extension and there is no documentation to show that the commander requested a closeout date extension.  Thus, the referral OPR was justified as outlined in the governing instructions, which states a score of less than passing, or an expired fitness test without a valid exemption, requires the evaluation to be referred.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 23 Mar 18 for comment (Exhibit D), 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 and injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of ARPC/DPTS and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions because the commander did not formally request a closeout extension.  As such, we find no basis to remove the contested OPR or to reinstate her in the Air Force Reserves.  Additionally, the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence of an error or injustice to warrant granting her alternative request.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

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.

The application was adjudicated without a personal appearance.

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-2017-03220 in Executive Session on 9 May 18:

	, Panel Chair
	, Panel Member
	, Panel Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 21 May 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, ARPC/DPTS, dated 2 Mar 18.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 23 Mar 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 pertaining to Docket Number BC-2017-03220.