RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00365 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Her Fitness Assessments (FA), dated 28 Jan 11 and 2 May 12, be declared void and removed from her records (administratively resolved). 2. Her referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 16 Apr 11 through 15 Apr 12, be declared void and removed from her records. 3. Her corrected records receive supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) for promotion cycle 13E6. 4. She be awarded the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM) for her service from 3 June 08 through 2 June 11. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. The contested FA failures were a result of a medical condition beyond her control and her commander directed they be taken prior to her profile paperwork being accomplished. Subsequent to the contested FA failures, her medical provider documented on an AF Form 108, Physical Fitness Education and Intervention Processing, a medical condition that precluded her successful completion of the FAs. Her commander had a second evaluation of her FA failures accomplished where it was determined the contested FA failures were the result of a medical condition. 2. Her referral “4” EPR was rendered as a result of the contested FA failures and should therefore also be removed from her records. As a result of the referral EPR, she was ineligible for promotion testing and was not considered for promotion during promotion cycle 13E6. Since her medical condition was the contributing factor for her FA failures, she should receive supplemental promotion consideration. 3. On 15 Jun 11, she was denied award of the AFGCM without a reason being given. The denial process for award of the AFGCM was not completed in accordance with AFI 36-2803, The Air Force Military Awards and Decorations Program. During this timeframe, she had received other awards for her performance and her leadership did not advise her that her conduct was less than exemplary. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant served in the Regular Air Force in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) during the matter under review. On 28 Jan 11, the applicant participated in the contested FA and attained an overall composite score of 44.00, resulting in an unsatisfactory rating (the applicant was exempt from the push-up component). This FA score was later removed from the applicant’s records by the FAAB on 6 Nov 13. On 15 Jun 11, the applicant’s commander denied awarding her the AFGCM for the period of 3 June 08 through 2 June 11. On 29 Feb 12, the applicant became non-current with respect to her FA status. On 2 May 12, the applicant participated in the contested FA, and attained an overall composite score of 48.00, resulting in an unsatisfactory rating (the applicant was exempt from all components with the exception of the abdominal circumference). This FA result was removed from the applicant’s records by the FAAB on 6 Nov 13. On 15 May 12, the applicant’s commander ordered her to have a medical records review and an AF Form 108 completed at the Military Treatment Facility (MTF) to determine if a medical condition precluded her from passing the 28 Jan 11, 14 Apr 11, and 2 May 12 FAs, for the purpose of determining whether administrative discharge action should be taken. On 17 May 12, the contested EPR was referred to the applicant for a “does not meet” standards rating and comments in Block III, Fitness. On 22 May 12, according to an AF Form 108, a medical provider determined after review of the applicant’s medical records that she had a documented medical condition that precluded her from achieving a passing score on the 28 Jan 11 and 2 May 12 FAs. On 25 May 12, the applicant provided a response to the referral EPR indicating she was unable to meet fitness standards due to her medical condition and because the issue was beyond her control, it should have no negative impact on her career. On 6 Nov 13, the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB), directed that the 28 Jan 11 and 2 May 12 FAs be removed from the applicant’s the AFFMS. On 30 Jun 14, the applicant was honorably discharged in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) and was credited with 15 years and 1 day of total active service. The narrative reason for the applicant’s separation was “Non-Retention on Active Duty.” The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, which are at Exhibits C, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDR recommends approval of the applicant’s request for the AFGCM. The AFGCM is awarded to enlisted personnel during a three-year period of active service or for a one-year period of service during a time of war. The medal can also be awarded to service members who complete more than one year but less than three years of active federal military service if it has not been previously awarded. After a thorough review of the applicant’s records, they were unable to verify she had previously received the medal. The applicant provided documentation from those in her immediate chain indicating they were unaware of the commander’s denial. The medal is awarded upon specific recommendation of the unit commander; however, the commander must consider the immediate supervisor’s recommendation before exercising their prerogative; they may deny if a member’s conduct is less than exemplary, coupled with submission of correlating documentation, i.e., an Unfavorable Information File (UIF), Control Roster actions, or a letter of reprimand, relating to the misconduct. If the sole basis of denial from the applicant’s commander was due to her receipt of the referral EPR because of FA failures, such a circumstance, in and of itself, does not disqualify the applicant from receiving the medal. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the contested referral EPR, since she has not exhausted administrative remedies by appealing to the ERAB. Furthermore, her FA was not current at the time of the referral EPR close-out date. Her last FA was 5 Aug 11, causing her next test to be due no later than 29 Feb 12. Due to the report close-out date of 15 Apr 12, without a current FA on file, the rating chain had no choice as per AFI 36-2905, Fitness, but to refer the report. In accordance with AFI 36-2905, Fitness, dated 18 Jul 11 para 3.12 “failure to remain current as well as failure to attain a passing score on the applicable FA before the end of any evaluation reporting period will result in a “DOES NOT MEET STANDARDS” rating on the OPR/EPR.” The evaluation was completed appropriately and within regulatory Air Force requirements. An evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. Once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record. The applicant has not substantiated the referral report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators, based on their knowledge at the time. Due to the applicant being in a non-current fitness status, and no evidence to prove otherwise, the referral report, as rendered, is accurate. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIDE evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s request for supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 13E6 on the basis that she was ineligible based on the 15 Apr 12 referral EPR. Furthermore, she was also ineligible for the cycle 12E6 due to her referral EPR for the prior rating period. Should the Board direct removal of the contested referral report, there would still be no way for her to receive supplemental consideration for promotion to technical sergeant because she never tested and has no test on file. 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 20 May 14 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 with respect to the applicant’s request that her referral enlisted performance report (EPR) be declared void and removed from her records. The applicant contends that because she had a medical condition that unfairly precluded her from attaining passing fitness assessment (FA) scores, and said scores were the reason for the referral EPR, the EPR should be removed from her records. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, we are not convinced that corrective action is warranted. While the applicant has presented a copy of an AF Form 108, Physical Fitness Education and Intervention Processing, indicating that she had a medical condition that precluded her from attaining passing scores on her 28 Jan 11 and 2 May 12 FAs, causing said FAs to be removed from her records by the Fitness Assessment Appeal Board (FAAB), we are not convinced that further action is warranted. Notwithstanding the FAAB’s action to remove these FA scores, the fact remains the applicant was non-current on fitness at the time of the close-out of the contested EPR. In this respect, we note the comments of AFPC/DPSID indicating that because her last FA was on 5 Aug 11, her next FA (pass or fail) needed to be conducted no later than 29 Feb 12 in order for her to remain current. As the report closed out on 15 Apr 12 without a current FA on file, the “Does Not Meet” standards rating for fitness was required in accordance with AFI 36-2905, Fitness, dated 18 Jul 11. Because such a rating requires an EPR to be referred, the report had to be referred to the applicant. Therefore, in view of the fact that the contested EPR remains accurate, despite the removal of the 28 Jan 11 and 2 May 12 FAs, we find no basis to recommend corrective action with respect to the referral EPR or the applicant’s request for supplemental promotion consideration. 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 request for the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM). In this respect, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of AFPC/DPSIDR and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that corrective action is warranted. 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: a. She was awarded the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM) for the period 3 June 2008 through 2 June 2011. b. Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with her 30 June 2014 release from active duty, be corrected to reflect that she was credited with the AFGCM w/four oak leaf clusters (OLC), instead of the AFGCM w/three OLCs. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-00365 in Executive Session on 19 Aug 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated 14 Jan 13, 20 May 13, and 28 May 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 31 Dec 13. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 11 Apr 14. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 28 Apr 14. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 May 14. 1 2