RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04301 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Her 17 October 2011 Fitness Assessment (FA) score be declared void and removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). 2. Her AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) (AB thru TSgt), rendered for the period 19 October 2010 thru 18 October 2011, be declared void and removed from her records. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. She was forced to take her FA the day before the close-out of her EPR due to an error in the AFFMS which erroneously indicated she was exempt from testing. Subsequently, she failed the contested FA as a result of undiagnosed bronchitis and sinusitis that affected the cardio component of her testing. 2. Her supervision knew of her diagnosis, but failed to request an extension of the close-out of the contested EPR to give her an opportunity to re-test; instead, they finalized her EPR, and the annotated FA failure, causing the contested report to be a referral. 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 grade of staff sergeant (E-5). On 17 October 2011, the applicant participated in the contested FA, attaining a composite score of 62.00, which constituted an unsatisfactory assessment. On 18 October 2011, the contested EPR closed out. On 18 October 2011, the applicant was diagnosed with acute bronchitis and sinusitis by the Lourdes Medical Center of Burlington County at Deborah Emergency Medicine. On 1 December 2011, the contested EPR was referred to the applicant due to a rating and comments relative to the contested FA failure. On 4 October 2012, AFPC/DPSIM requested the applicant provide additional supporting documentation to substantiate her claim. Specifically, a copy of her Air Force (AF) Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition (DLC) Report; AF Form 422, Notification of Air Force Member’s Qualification Status; and signed fitness assessment score sheet. However, there is no evidence the applicant responded to the request. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to have her 17 October 2011 FA removed from AFFMS. In accordance with Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2905, Fitness Program, if an airman becomes injured or ill during the FA, he/she will have the option of being evaluated at a Medical Treatment Facility (MTF). If an injury/illness is validated and the unit commander is provided supporting medical documentation, said FA may be invalidated; otherwise, the original FA will count. Also, a Fitness Screening Questionnaire (FSQ) is reviewed prior to allowing any member to conduct an official FA. Any high risk response is noted and forwarded to the MTF for further disposition. If there is a need for a component exemption, an AF Form 422 must be provided to the member by the MTF for his/her commander’s approval. In this case, the applicant did not offer any evidence that she provided her commander with an AF Form 422 or that the commander determined she should be exempt from the cardio component of her test. More importantly, the applicant failed to provide a copy of an AF Form 108, Physical Fitness Education and Intervention Processing, indicating that she had a preexisting condition that contributed to her 17 October 2011 FA failure. In addition, the applicant did not notify her commander within one duty day of an injury/illness to ensure communication regarding test validity with the MTF and Fitness Assessment Cell (FAC) staff occurred prior to her score entry into AFFMS. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the contested referral EPR. The applicant asserts that her supervision was aware of her diagnosis and never requested her commander request an extension of the close-out date of her EPR. Although, it is not mandatory for a commander to request an extension past the annual date when an EPR is due, the applicant did not provide any supporting documentation from the rating chain claiming they were aware of her situation or that they believed the failed FA should be invalidated. The applicant provided a copy of a report from the Lourdes Medical Center; however, it was her responsibility to pursue any needed profile(s) with her Primary Care Manager (PCM). There is no evidence to show that she made any attempts prior to, during, or after her contested FA to obtain the needed documentation for her unit commander to invalidate her test. While the applicant claims that an error in AFFMS forced her to take her PT test the day before her EPR closed out, she was actually two months overdue for testing. Nevertheless, in accordance with AFI 36-2905, it is every Airman’s responsibility to maintain fitness standards throughout the year. It appears the applicant failed to maintain these prescribed standards which resulted in an unsatisfactory FA on 17 October 2011. Based on this assessment, the rating and comments relative to her FA failure are valid and appropriate as recorded on the contested evaluation in accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and procedures. The applicant may feel this is an injustice; however, there are avenues to ensure that any medical issues are taken into consideration, not by the rating chain, but with the proper authorities within the medical community. To change or void this EPR would be an injustice to other Airmen who consulted with the medical community and received proper medical profiles regarding the fitness program or the other Airmen who have met the regulatory Air Force requirements. Also, the applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB). A complete of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOE indicates they have no equity in the decision of the applicant’s request but defers to the recommendations of AFPC/DPSIM and AFPC/DPSID. Should the failed fitness assessment and referral EPR be removed, the applicant would be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) beginning with cycle 12E6. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 May 2013 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). 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. After a thorough review of the evidence presented, we are not persuaded that the fitness assessment or the contested EPR 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 basis to recommend granting the relief sought in 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-2012-04301 in Executive Session on 13 June 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 September 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 21 January 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 22 April 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 29 April 2013 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 May 2013.