RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03248 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 20 Aug 2009 through 20 Oct 2011, be voided from his records. His line number to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt, E-5) be reinstated with a 1 Jan 2011 promotion date. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: On 29 June 2010 while completing his annual Fitness Assessment (FA), he collapsed and was unable to complete the FA. In accordance with AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, paragraph 2.4.1, he should have been retested within five duty days or be categorized “medically exempt.” His medical condition was under evaluation, precluding any exercising for four months. He was given an exercise prescription on 27 Sep 2010 and subsequently retested on 28 Sep 2010 at which time he failed the FA. His referral EPR is unjust because not only was his medical condition not taken into consideration during this grading (sic) period, but his unit and the medical treatment facility (MTF) personnel failed to follow proper guidelines and Air Force Instructions. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition, AF 422, Notification of Air Force Member's Qualification Status, Sequence of Events, medical records, a recommendation letter, certified dietitian letter, Fitness Assessment history, EPR, rebuttal memorandum, and weighted airman promotion system (WAPS) score notice. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of senior airman (E-4). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C, and D. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant's request to change or void the contested EPR. DPSID states the applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36·2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. According to the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS) record, he failed his FA on 28 Sep 2010. He was exempt in three of the four evaluation categories; the only category not being exempt was the abdominal measurement. What the applicant is not taking into consideration with this appeal is the fact that there were no untested categories that would have made being re- tested within five days as an issue. He tested only on the abdominal component, and failed to achieve a passing score, based on this single measured component. Accordingly, DPSID finds that this allegation is without merit. Concerning the applicant's second allegation that his unit and the MTF personnel failed to follow proper guidelines and Air Force instructions, DPSID finds no evidence of this in the case as presented by the applicant. The burden of proof is on the applicant to substantiate this allegation and the only proof he provides are his own views and opinions. Based on the lack of any evidence to support the applicant's claim that MTF personnel failed to follow proper guidelines and instructions, they find no merit in this aspect of the applicant's claim. The applicant was only permitted to be tested on abdominal circumference (AC), and it appears from the documentation he submitted, he believes he was at a testing disadvantage due to his AC measuring at 38.5 inches. Even though it was not an automatic failure, it still cumulatively resulted in a ruling score on his fitness evaluation, when considered as the only fitness component. A review of the applicant's AFFMS fitness history illustrates that between 2008 and 2010, the applicant experienced an average 5.5 inch gain in waist circumference. He would imply that this increase of waist size over time was out of his control due to medical conditions (thyroid condition) he was experiencing. The fact is the applicant, although restricted in his ability to perform exercise during the contested rating period, was able to control his dietary intake, and thus could have taken measures to ensure that his waist measurement was in line with a passing fitness evaluation. The applicant was also deemed by medical authorities not to be exempt from the abdominal circumference measurement, and thus testable in this single component. AFI 36-2905 was effective 1 Jul 2010 and states: “It is every Airman's responsibility to maintain the standards set forth in this AFI 365 days a year." Being physically fit allows you to properly support the Air Force mission. The goal of the Fitness Program is to motivate all members to participate in a year- round physical conditioning program that emphasizes total fitness, to include proper aerobic conditioning, strength/flexibility training, and healthy eating.” In the applicant's case, the phrase healthy eating is a key phrase. Due to the applicant’s failed FA, it appears the rating chain rated the applicant on the EPR appropriately as an "Above Average" airman. Although it appears the applicant performed extremely well during the reporting period, the failed FA as of the closeout date, caused the EPR to be a referral and although the Air Force does not mandate a specific overall rating in these cases it appears the rating chain deemed that a "4" rating was appropriate. The evaluation was completed within Air Force requirements. Although the applicant may feel that this was unjust, there were avenues to ensure that any medical issues were taken into consideration - not by the rating chain, but with the proper authority, the medical community. Therefore to change or void this evaluation would be an injustice to other Airman who have consulted with the medical community and received the proper medical profiles regarding the fitness program or the other Airmen which have met Air Force requirements. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPSOE defers to DPSID’s recommendation regarding the validity and removal of the contested EPR. DPSOE states the applicant was considered and tentatively selected for promotion to SSgt during cycle 10E5. He received promotion sequence number (PSN) 5224.0, which would have incremented on 1 Jan 2011; however, the fact that he received a referral report for the period 23 Aug 2009 through 20 Oct 2010, rendered him ineligible for promotion in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, and his PSN was subsequently removed. AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, states that a report is referred when "Does not Meet" blocks are marked in the performance assessment section of the AF Form 910/911. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. HQ AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial to have the applicant’s FA, dated 28 Sept 2010 removed from AFFMS. DPSIM states, the applicant’s test on 28 Sep 2010 is valid and it should be noted that he tested AC only and did not meet the required standard to obtain a passing score. DPSIM refers to the applicant’s 29 Jun 2010 FA and states that AFI 36-2905, on which the applicant bases his contention that he “should have been retested within five duty days” after not completing the FA, did not become effective until 1 Jul 2010 and does not apply to the applicant’s 29 Jun 2010 FA. The complete DPSIM evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 29 Feb 12, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant 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; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 this application in Executive Session on 1 May 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC- 2011-03248: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Jan 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSID, dated 3 Jan 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOE, dated 18 Jan 2012. Exhibit E. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIM, dated 8 Feb 2011, w/atchs. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Feb 2012.