RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00694 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His demotion from the grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt/E-6) to the grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt/E-5) be rescinded. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was demoted after four consecutive Fitness Assessment (FA) failures. However, he has since been diagnosed with asthma and his doctor says asthma can directly affect the outcome of FAs. By following his doctor’s orders, he has passed his ensuing FAs. 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 TSgt on the dates of the FAs in question. On 12 Aug 10, 9 Nov 10, 3 Mar 11, and 16 May 11, the applicant failed to obtain passing scores on FAs. On 18 May 11, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating administrative demotion to the grade of SSgt due to the applicant’s failure to keep fit. The applicant appealed the decision, but his appeal was disapproved. On 23 May 11, the applicant was administratively demoted to SSgt. The applicant’s most recent FA results are as follows: Date Composite Score Rating 4 Apr 13 87.25 Satisfactory 21 Jun 12 91.00 Excellent 30 Dec 11 81.90 Satisfactory 16 May 11 69.10 Unsatisfactory 3 Mar 11 67.50 Unsatisfactory 9 Nov 10 56.60 Unsatisfactory 12 Aug 10 73.90 Unsatisfactory 18 Mar 10 79.60 Good The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, which are included at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. According to the applicant, during the first three FA failures he was on a medical profile which required him to walk due to having been diagnosed with plantar fasciitis. During his fourth failed FA on 16 May 11, he experienced an asthma attack which prevented him from passing. Only after experiencing breathing difficulties again during his 30 Dec 11 FA, which he passed , did he schedule an appointment with his primary care manager (PCM) where he was diagnosed with asthma. There is insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s claim that the asthma caused the FA failures. The applicant has not provided clear documentation from the PCM proving his asthma condition affected him at the time the FAs were administered. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice in the demotion action. AFI 10-248, Fitness Program, states unit commanders will consider administrative action for members who have composite scores of less than 75 for greater than 90 days and, following primary care manager evaluation, will take administrative action as appropriate against those identified as in poor fitness for greater than a continuous 180-day period. Based upon the information the applicant’s commander had at the time, he acted within his authority to demote the applicant. AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the contested FAs. Therefore, the applicant’s request to remove the demotion action should be denied. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 18 Oct 13 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). ________________________________________________________________ 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. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2013-00694 in Executive Session on 4 Feb 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-00694 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Jan 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 20 Sep 13, w/atch. Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 30 Sep 13. Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Oct 13.. 1 2