RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04863 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His enlisted performance reports with close-out dates of 10 February 2011, 27 June 2010 and 27 June 2009, be removed from his records. 2. His fitness assessments dated 28 February 2011, 30 November 2010, 8 October 2009 and 25 June 2009 be removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). 3. He be allowed to reenter the Air Force. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was involuntarily discharged for failing four fitness assessments within two years. He has a heart condition called Aortic Insufficiency and Obstructive Sleep Apnea. He had been placed on waivers for these conditions in the past and again after his fourth fitness assessment failure. The flight doctor told him there was nothing wrong with his fitness performance. However, he was given a letter from a cardiologist disproving that claim. He believes he should have been evaluated by a medical evaluation board for his continuous chest pains before and after exercising. In support of the request, the applicant provides a personal statement, DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, AF Form 100, Request and Authorization for Discharge, a physician’s note, AFFMS print-out and a congressional response. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 4 August 1999. On 11 May 2011, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to discharge him from the Air Force for failing to meet minimum fitness standards. He acknowledged his right to present his case before an administrative discharge board, to be represented by military counsel and to submit statements on his behalf. He initially elected to have his case heard before a discharge board; however, he later elected to waive his right to a discharge board. On 20 June 2011, the case was found legally sufficient. On 22 June 2011, the commander directed he be discharged from the Air Force. He was honorably discharged on 30 June 2011 and credited with 11 years, 10 months and 27 days of active duty service. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial. On 28 February 2011, the applicant scored 31.70 points on the cardio component, 15.80 points on the abdominal circumference, 7.70 points for push-ups and 5 points for sit-ups. The applicant did not pass the fitness assessment due to his failure to meet the minimum required score in the cardio and sit-up components of the assessment. On 30 November 2011, the applicant scored 35.80 on the cardio component, 20 points for the abdominal circumference, 5.30 for the push-ups and 5.50 for the sit-ups. The applicant did not meet the minimum required score for the cardio and sit-up components of the fitness assessment. The applicant obtained an overall fitness level of good on his fitness assessments on 6 May 2010 and 25 November 2009. On 8 October 2009, the applicant did not obtain the minimum required fitness level of good. His overall fitness score was 73.80 points; his fitness level was poor. On 25 June 2009, the applicant failed to obtain the minimum required fitness level of good. His overall fitness score was 56.60; his fitness level was poor. The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. The applicant contends his fitness failures were due to his underlying medical condition as diagnosed by an off-base cardiologist. That evaluation does not override the Air Force flight doctor’s medical opinion that the medical conditions did not preclude the applicant from achieving a passing fitness score. Based on AFPC/DPSIM’s recommendation to deny the applicant’s request to have his fitness scores removed from AFFMS, the referral fitness comments, as well as the “Does Not Meet” marking in section III, Block 3 of each contested EPR is valid and appropriate with all applicable Air Force policies and procedures. Additionally, only two of the three contested EPRs were referrals due to fitness failures. The other EPR was marked down for other performance issues and an overall rating of “4”. The applicant does not provide evidence or rational as to why he seeks to void that EPR. The applicant’s medical issues were properly taken into consideration by the proper authorities within the military medical community. A change or void to the contested EPRs would be an injustice to other airmen who have consulted with the medical community and received proper medical profiles regarding the fitness program. An evaluation is considered to represent the rating chains best judgment at the time it is rendered. Once a report is accepted for filing, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record. The applicant has not substantiated the contested reports were not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. The applicant’s reentry code 2C was properly established based on his involuntary discharge and honorable character of service. The applicant was counseled on several occasions and was afforded ample opportunity to overcome his deficiencies. There was no error or injustice with regard to his discharge processing. Based on documentation within the applicant’s master personnel records, the discharge to include the characterization of service was consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction. The applicant has provided no evidence that an error or injustice occurred during the discharge process. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 12 April 2012, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). As of this date, this office has received no response. ________________________________________________________________ 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 injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence presented, we are not persuaded that the fitness assessments or the contested reports are erroneous or unjust as recorded. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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 our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-04863 in Executive Session on 11 September 2012 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to BCMR Docket Number BC-2011-04863 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Dec 11 w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 19 Jan 12. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 27 Feb 12. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 19 Mar 12. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Apr 12.