RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02075 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated on active duty in the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt/E-5). ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His fitness assessment (FA) failures were based on two different testing standards (3 failures were under the old standard and one was under the new standard). He should have been offered probation and rehabilitation (P&R) prior to being separated. The administrative discharge board (ADB) recommended P&R; however, it was not granted. He was meeting all duty standards at the time of discharge and had no conduct issues during his enlistment. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of the ADB record. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 30 Jul 02. The applicant's commander notified him on 10 Mar 11 that he was recommending him for discharge for Unsatisfactory Performance. The specific reasons for this action were on or about 20 Oct 09, the applicant received a "Poor" composite fitness level score of 50.05; on or about 19 Jan 10, he received a "Poor" composite fitness level score of 56.25; on or about 19 Apr 10, the applicant received a "Poor" composite fitness level score of 63.25, and on or about 30 Dec 10, the applicant received a "Poor" composite fitness level score of 59.70. Before discharge was recommended in this case, the applicant was given ample opportunity to conform to accepted standards. Despite the unit's efforts, the applicant's compliance with Air Force fitness standards remained unacceptable. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and was afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel and submit statements in his own behalf. On 12 Apr 11, a properly constituted ADB convened to hear the applicant's case. Although he conceded there was a basis for discharge, he requested to be retained. He admitted his fault and did not blame anybody other than himself for his physical training (PT) failures. He explained that he only got serious about the test at critical points in his career - i.e., re- enlistment, deployment, etc., but after passing those assessments he did not take the fitness standards very seriously and was not sure of, or concerned about, the consequences. Finally, the applicant stated that he was not proud of his "back sliding" history, but he was proud of the milestone he had been able to achieve in his fitness quest - that he had passed his last fitness test, was currently in compliance and was volunteering his time to help others struggling to meet standards. The ADB found the applicant received scores of "poor" fitness for the assessments conducted on 30 Dec 10, 19 Apr 10, 19 Jan 10, and 20 Oct 09. They recommended that the Air Force remove the applicant from active duty, and his service be characterized as honorable. They also recommended he be offered P&R with a conditional suspension of the discharge. However, on 29 Apr 11, the separating authority, approved the ADB’s recommendation for discharge, and directed the discharge of the applicant with an honorable service characterization without P&R. The applicant was honorably discharged, on 20 May 11, with a reason for separation of physical standards, in the grade of senior airman (E-4/SrA). He was credited with 8 years, 9 months, 21 days of active duty service. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial, stating, in part, the applicant received counseling on several occasions and was afforded ample opportunity to overcome his deficiencies. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of discharge authority. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ USAF/A1PP recommends denial, stating, in part, that the Board should uphold the previous discharge action. They note the applicant was separated from active duty as a result of four fitness assessment failures within a 24-month period. In accordance with (IAW) Air Force Guidance Memorandum 2, effective 1 Jul 10, para 15; unit commanders possess the authority to make a discharge or retention recommendation to the installation commander once an airman receives four unsatisfactory FA scores in a 24-month period, when a medical provider has ruled out any medical condition precluding the airman from passing their fitness assessment. The complete HQ USAF/A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/JA recommends denial, stating, in part, that the applicant has failed to establish any error or injustice warranting relief. They note the applicant believes the record to be in error or unjust because his four combined FA failures were based on two different standards. Although, the applicant correctly pointed out that his fitness assessment failures were evaluated under two different standards, AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, para 9.1.5.2.1, provides that "a failing score, to include one under a prior version of this instruction, remains a valid basis for discharge so long as it is within 24 months of the member's most recent FA failures." The applicant's last FA failure occurred on 30 Dec 10, and it was the only assessment performed under the new standard, implemented in Jul 11, by a change to AFI 36-2905. The remainder of his failures occurred under the old standards, but all of them took place within the 24 months prescribed time (19 Apr 10, 19 Jan 10, and 20 Oct 09); therefore the requirements of the above mentioned AFI were met and the applicant's contentions are without merit. The remainder of the applicant’s assertions deals with P&R. The applicant alleged that the record is in error and unjust because the discharge board determined that he should be offered P&R and he was not, even though he also received a character letter from the discharge board's President supporting P&R, and he was meeting all duty standards, without any bad conduct issues during his enlistment. AFI 36- 3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, provides that the Separation Authority is the Air Force official authorized to take final action with respect to a specified type of separation. The AFI specifically states the Special Court-Martial Convening (SPCM) authority "personally approves or disapproves discharges" for failures in the Fitness Program. In addition, the record review revealed that the government failed to obtain the "medical clearance" required by AFI 36- 2905, para 9.1.5.5.; however, the applicant did not raise this issue during the Board hearing, nor did he offer any evidence supporting a medical condition that might have prevented him from passing his fitness assessments. Therefore, the departure from the established AFI procedure is inconsequential given the full and fair proceedings otherwise reflected in the Board record. The complete AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 4 Nov 11 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit F). ________________________________________________________________ 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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case. The Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs) have conducted a thorough examination of the evidence presented and we are in agreement with their opinions and recommendation. The discharge appears to comply with the governing AFI and we find no evidence to indicate that his separation from the Air Force was inappropriate. We find insufficient evidence of error in this case to warrant relief and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice. Therefore, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider this application. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2011-02075 in Executive Session on 28 February 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 May 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 19 Sep 11. Exhibit D. Letter, AF/A1PP, undated. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 21 Oct 11. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Nov 11.