RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03926 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Fitness Assessment (FA) scores, dated 10 Sep 09, 10 Dec 09, 31 Aug 10, 13 Oct 10, and 16 Feb 11, be declared void and removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS); in the alternative, his records be corrected to reflect he was exempt from the cardio component of the contested FAs. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He performed the cardio portion of the contested assessments on a track that was longer than longer than the 1.5 miles and was not properly marked in accordance with the governing instruction. The failed FAs are contributory factor in the disciplinary action being taken against him. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the rank of technical sergeant (E-6). Under the provisions of AFI 10-248, Fitness Program, and AFI 36- 2905, Fitness Program, the course for the 1.5 mile should be accurate in distance and level and the start and finish lines should be clearly marked. Attachment 2, USAF Fitness Scoring, of the AFI reflects males 30- 39 must meet minimum value in each of the four components, and achieve a composite point total greater than 75 points. The passing minimum time for the cardio component for male between the ages 30-39 is 14:00 minutes. The contested FA results are listed below: Date Cardio Results Composite Score Rating 10 Sep 09 16:10 64.05 Poor 10 Dec 09 15:18 69.80 Poor 31 Aug 10 15:19 55.70 Unsatisfactory 13 Oct 10 14:07 68.50 Unsatisfactory 16 Feb 11 15:04 60.10 Unsatisfactory On 11 Sep 13, AFPC/DPSIM requested the applicant provide additional documentation to substantiate his claim, specifically a signed memorandum from the local Fitness Assessment Cell (FAC) and installation commander indicating the 1.5 mile track was not certified and was incorrectly measured along with the signed score sheet and questionnaire for the contested FAs. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request for removal of the contested FAs, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. However, based evidence provided attesting to the discrepancy in the length of the track used during the contested FAs which may have resulted in the recording of inaccurate data, the cardio portion of the contested FAs which will result in the applicant receiving four satisfactory and one unsatisfactory FA. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 2 May 13, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office. ________________________________________________________________ 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 error or injustice with respect to the applicant’s request to remove his Fitness Assessment (FA) scores from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). The applicant contends that his 10 Sep 09, 10 Dec 09, 31 Aug 10, 13 Oct 10, and 16 Feb 11 FA scores should be declared void and removed from his records because the tracks at his unit were longer than the prescribed 1.5 miles or not properly marked in accordance with the prescribing directive. While we note the comments of AFPC/DPSIM indicating the applicant’s records should be corrected to reflect that he was exempt from the cardio component of the contested FAs, we do not find the evidence presented sufficient to conclude the applicant would have attained a passing score on the 10 Sep 09, 10 Dec 09, 31 Aug 10, and 16 Feb 11 FAs were it not for the purported discrepancies. In this respect, we note that in these four FAs, the applicant’s run time exceeded the maximum time allowed (14:00 minutes) by more than a full minute and we do not find it reasonable to conclude that the noted discrepancies would have resulted his failure to attain a satisfactory score by such a wide margin. 4. Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice with respect to the applicant’s 13 Oct 10 FA score. In this respect, we note the applicant exceeded the maximum time allowed or the cardio component of this FA by only seven seconds and, given this narrow margin, find that it is reasonable to conclude the applicant would have attained a passing score on the cardio component of this FA were it not for the noted discrepancies with the track. Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected to the extent indicated below. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that he was exempt from the cardio component of his 13 October 2010 Fitness Assessment (FA). ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-03926 in Executive Session on 13 Jun 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-03926 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Aug 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 2 May 13, w/atch. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 May 13.