RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02006 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His Air Force Cycle Ergometry Fitness Assessment (FA) test score dated 20 Apr 10 be invalidated. 2. His FAs dated 29 Oct 10, 24 Apr 12 and 4 May 12, be declared void and removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. On 20 Apr 10, he failed his FA test. He was miscounseled by the Health and Wellness Center (HAWC) Officer in Charge (OIC) on how to perform his next fitness test with continued profile restrictions. Because of the OIC’s advice, he continued to prepare for the Rockport cardio walk test that would take effect 1 Jul 10. Had it not been for the advice received from the OIC, he would have used his 42 day reconditioning period to prepare for the full assessment as opposed to the one mile walk. He notes that in Jul 10, the Air Force replaced the cycle Ergometry test with the Rockport one (1) mile walk due to the “excessive number of invalid scores that resulted from the test.” 2. On 29 Oct 10, he failed another FA. Prior to Jun 11, the Fitness Assessment Cell (FAC) conducted the walk test with the same stop and start points as the 1.5 mile run. After another military member failed his walk test, the mile marker measurement was questioned. Although the FAC was operating as instructed by the HAWC, it was discovered the mile marker measurement was incorrect. The mile marker was later corrected and the member was retested and passed. 3. On 24 Apr 12, he again failed his FA test. In accordance with AFI 36-2905, Personnel Fitness Program, the abdominal circumference measurement is to be recorded three times and rounded down to the nearest one-half inch. The member who measured his waist called out each measurement but failed to record each one as stated in the AFI. In his case, the one-half inch variance was the difference between a pass and fail on his FA. 4. On 4 May 12, he failed his FA test. His provider’s memorandum for record (MFR) stated he had a medical condition that prevented him from attaining a passing score on the walking component of his FA; however, the test was not removed from his records. He was not allowed the opportunity to retest. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving on active duty. In an email dated 1 Jul 10, the applicant was advised by the Flight Commander of the HAWC that “since you are in the 42 day reconditioning process, you may only be tested on the restrictions of the previous AF Form 422. Since there is no cycle Ergometry testing as of 1 Jul, your test will consist of the 1 mile walk test and abdominal circumference. Upon expiration of your 42 days reconditioning, you are cleared to test in all components of the AF Fitness Test.” On 29 May 12, a memorandum was sent to applicant requesting additional documentation for removal of his FA dated 29 Oct 10. Specifically, a signed memorandum from the local FAC stating the measurements for the track were initially incorrect and were adjusted correctly for those performing the one mile walk. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 1. AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the FA dated 20 Apr 10, from the AFFMS. DPSIM states the applicant performed eight minutes on the Ergometry bike and received a VO2ax score of 27 which reflected his aerobic fitness. The test was not shown to be invalid. 2. DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove his FA dated 29 Oct 10, from the AFFMS. DPSIM states a memorandum was sent to the applicant requesting additional documentation. In particular, a signed memorandum from the local FAC stating the track measurements for the one mile walk were initially incorrect but were adjusted. 3. DPSIM recommends approval of the applicant’s request to remove his FA dated 24 Apr 12, from the AFFMS. DPSIM states the applicant provided a copy of his FA score sheet and copies of memorandums from his unit commander, FAC and the individual who performed his measurements. Additionally, he provided an email from his first sergeant. 4. DPSIM recommends approval of the applicant’s request to remove his FA dated 4 May 12, from the AFFMS. DPSIM states that IAW AFI 36-2905 the medical provider will sign AF Form 108, Physical Fitness Education and Intervention Processing, if a member is referred for a medical evaluation following an unsatisfactory score. Members with unsatisfactory scores may be scheduled for a medical evaluation to determine if there are possible medical indicators that prohibit program success. DPSIM states the applicant provided copies of his signed AF Form 108, AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report and his AF Form 422, Notification of Air Force Member’s Qualification Status and therefore recommends his FA be removed. The AF Form 422 reflects that he was not eligible for a full FA until 15 Jul 2012. The complete DPSIM evaluations, with attachment, are at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 18 Sep 12, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ 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. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, we are not persuaded the FAs, dated 20 Apr and 29 Oct 10, are in error or unjust. In this respect, we note the applicant has provided no evidence to invalid the results of these FAs. While he contends that he was miscounseled by the HAWC OIC on how to perform his next fitness test with continued profile restrictions and the mile marker measurement for the 29 Oct 10 FA was incorrect, he provides no evidence to support these contentions. However, should he provide such evidence, we would be willing to reconsider his request. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this portion of the application. 4. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice to warrant voiding the FAs, dated 24 Apr 12 and 4 May 12 and removing them from the AFFMS. The Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) has adequately addressed the issues presented by the applicant and we are in agreement with their opinion and recommendation. In this respect, for the FA dated 24 Apr 12, the applicant has provided the requested documentation certifying that the waist measurements were not properly computed, therefore, it should be removed. Regarding the FA, dated 4 May 12, the signed documents from the applicant’s commander and medical provider substantiates that because of his medical condition he should have been exempted from the contested FA. Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s record be corrected to the extent indicated below. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Fitness Assessments, dated 24 Apr 12 and 4 May 12, be removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-02006 in Executive Session on 11 Jun 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Apr 12, 3 Aug 12, and two dated, 9 Aug 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 13 Sep 12, w/atchs. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Sep 12. Vice Chair