RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05497 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period of 7 Jul 10 through 6 Jul 11 be removed from his records and any other negative documents be removed. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. There were extenuating circumstances in his case with regard to administrative support; he was geographically separated from his unit; there was no active fitness program, along with a number of other communication barriers and technical issues, which led to him being unaware of changes to the fitness testing schedule, per the governing instructions. 2. As indicated in his records, he was “fit to fight” during the evaluation period. When he tried to find out why he was not informed of the fitness program policy changes, he discovered that he was not included on Office of Contracts Military, or NRO Air Force/Military email distribution lists. Because of this omission, he was never included or invited via email to listen in on any military functions such as Commander’s Call, etc., where notification and implementation of Air Force policy changes are commonly announced and emphasized, nor did he receive notifications on any Air Force related matters such as practices, policy changes, procedures, news or information during this period. Additionally, because there was no fitness program at his duty location he was unable to hear about or understand how changes to the fitness instruction affected his testing cycle. Had he had access or been informed about the changes, he would have scheduled and completed his fitness test within the appropriate timeframe. 3. He submits an email that substantiates that he did not receive information regarding fitness assessments and referral evaluations because he was not on the email addressee list. 4. After a year of debate and exhausting all avenues in seeking exoneration, the OPR in question was added to his permanent file in July of this year. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of a personal memorandum, his OPR, his rebuttal to the referral OPR, his Individual Fitness Assessment History, email communications, a letter of support, and excerpts from his personnel records. 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 major The following is a resume of the applicant’s last seven EPRs: OPR CLOSEOUT DATE PERFORMANCE FOCTORS * 6 Jul 11 DOES NOT MEET STANDARDS 6 Jul 10 MEETS STANDARDS 10 Feb 10 MEETS STANDARDS 10 Feb 09 MEETS STANDARDS 10 Feb 08 MEETS STANDARDS *Contested Report The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which is at Exhibit C and D. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM does not make a recommendation regarding the removal of the applicant’s OPR; however, they recommend his non- compliance FA status be retained in his records. he referral OPR was generated for non-currency of his FA; therefore, the applicant is indirectly asking for review of his status at the time his OPR closed out. The applicant contends that part of the reason for his non-currency was that he was not aware of policy changes. It is unclear as to what changes the applicant is referring to. Per the governing instructions, “Frequency of fitness testing should be based on the previous fitness score unless earlier assessment is necessary to accommodate the AEF rotation and maximize time available for intervention/fitness improvement.” Airmen have to be tested at least one time in a given year; more if they are not in the excellent category. The applicant’s last FA test was dated 30 Jun 10, indicating he would have to retest no later than 30 Dec 10. However, the evidence indicates there was no test accomplished in December 2010; this is when the applicant officially went noncurrent in the fitness program. Even if he did not know his test was due in December, he had until June 2011 to test and would have updated his FA currency. Further, they note that there were no changes in policy that would have impacted a minimum of one FA test annually. The complete DPSIM evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. If the applicant had researched the current fitness policy, he would have been aware of the new policy changes and tested in a timely manner; the requirement to test annually has been in place since 2007. Neither he nor his rating chain would have been in the position of having to process the report as a referral OPR on the basis of fitness non-currency. They believe the main cause of the referral was not due to being assigned to an isolated location, but rather the applicant’s lack of awareness or ignorance of the policy changes which caused him to be noncurrent on his fitness as of the closeout of OPR in question. Although the applicant may feel this is an injustice, there were avenues that he could have pursued during the rating period to ensure that he was fully informed of new fitness policy changes and remained current on issues directly affecting his career, such as fitness, promotions, developmental education, etc. Therefore, to change or void this evaluation would be an injustice to other airman who were also at isolated locations and remained abreast of new Air Force policy changes and requirements, and acted accordingly. The applicant has not substantiated that the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 21 Jun 13 for review and comment within 30 days. 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 error or injustice warranting the removal of his OPR from his records. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that his uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, are sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by AFPC/DPSID. Moreover, the comments of AFPC/DPSIM concerning the validity of the applicant’s FA non- compliance status are supported by the evidence of record. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of the existence 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-05497 in Executive Session on 22 Aug 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Nov 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 25 Feb 13. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 21 May 13. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 13. Chair