RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00804 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 8 September 2012 be removed from his record. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The referral report states he did not meet standards because he was overdue on a fitness assessment (FA). His FA was due on 31 April 2012. Due to a traumatic car accident involving unconsciousness on 19 December 2011 - he was placed on a restricted profile from 11 January 2012 through 9 July 2012. He obtained another physical from 9 August 2012 through 30 September 2012. On 27 August 2012, he received an AF Form 422 (Notification of Air Force Member’s Qualification Status) and accomplished his FA on 17 September 2012, scoring a 78.50. Due to circumstances beyond his control, he still received a rating of “Does Not Meet” and he received a referral report. He was demoted to senior airman on 27 December 2012 with over 10 years of active duty. Due to the referral report, his opportunity to re-test for his rank and continue his career in the Air Force has become obsolete. In support of the applicant’s appeal, he provides a personal statement, the contested EPR, email communique and documents extracted from his military personnel records. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 1 October 2002. The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. EPR profile since 2007 reflects the following: PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 10 Jan 07 5 22 Oct 07 5 22 Oct 08 5 22 Oct 09 5 22 Oct 10 5 22 Oct 11 5 * 8 Sep 12 3 * Contested report. The applicant filed a claim through the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB). The FAAB considered and denied the applicant’s appeal. They concluded there was insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s claim. On 17 June 2013, the applicant was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Misconduct – Minor Infractions). He served 10 years 8 months and 17 days on active duty. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial. DPSIM states the evidence provided indicates an attempt by the UFPM to obtain AF Form 422 and AF Form 469 from the HAWC via email. If the 11 May 2012 expiration date was accurate, the applicant would have had a 42- day reconditioning period prior to taking the FA. Of course, it could be assumed he was exempted from the FA, however, he did not provide the AF Form 422 or AF Form 469 reflecting his exemption status covering the time periods in question. In addition, official FA scores are not available in the AFFMS due to the applicant’s involuntary separation from the Air Force on 17 June 2013. IAW AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, airmen are responsible for maintaining standards. Specifically, each airman is responsible to remain current as defined in AFI 36-2905. Failing to remain current as well as failing 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 member’s OPR/EPR. They are also responsible to monitor his/her FA exemptions, schedule any necessary medical examinations, and initiate FA test arrangements in a timely manner. The DPSIM complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states on 12 January 2010, the senior Air Force leadership strengthened the AF Fitness program which delayed implementation to 1 July 2010. This was to ensure airmen were provided a six month timeframe to prepare for the new AF Fitness requirements. The applicant took his FA in the month he was due, neither he nor his rating chain would have been in the position of having to process the report as a referral EPR on the basis of his fitness not being current. The main cause of the referral was not due to anything other than the applicant’s failure to remain current on his FA. The evaluation was completed appropriately and within regulatory AF requirements. An evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. DPSID contends that once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record. The burden of proof is on the applicant. 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 DPSID complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 31 January 2014, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit E). 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. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. We do not find the documentation presented sufficient to conclude the contested report is an inaccurate assessment of his performance or that it was inappropriately rendered. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an 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-2013-00804 in Executive Session on 20 March 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 February 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. DD Form 214, AF Forms 910, AF IMT 910, Referral EPR documentation. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 20 September 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 21 January 2014. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 January 2014. 4 5