RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2013-02564 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 24 December 2009 through 23 December 2010, be voided and removed from his record. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The contested EPR was written based on his failure of his Fitness Assessment (FA) on 29 November 2010. He initially failed the cardio walk test portion of his FA due to having issues with his legs. He was unable to re-test prior to his EPR closing out due to not having enough time to meet the 42-day minimum requirement to re-test. After seeking medical care, he was diagnosed with Compartment Syndrome in both legs which cause pain and swelling in his shins. He subsequently had surgery to correct his condition in April 2011. The reason for his application being late is that he was unaware that he could get his record corrected at the time and when he did find out, he was deployed and had no way of getting most of the documentation needed. He was unable to test for master sergeant (E-7) in March 2011 due to his referral EPR. He tested again in March 2012 and missed being promoted by nine points. He believes if his EPR was corrected, he would have been promoted to master sergeant by now. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement; and, copies of the contested EPR documentation, an Individual Fitness Assessment History, and the medical referral for his leg condition. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6). The following is a resume of the applicant’s EPR profile: PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 24 May 98 (A1C) 5 24 May 99 5 24 May 00 (SrA) 5 23 Dec 00 5 23 Dec 01 5 23 Dec 02 (SSgt) 5 23 Dec 03 5 23 Dec 04 5 23 Dec 05 5 23 Dec 06 5 23 Dec 07 5 23 Dec 08 (TSgt) 5 23 Dec 09 5 23 Dec 10* 4 23 Dec 11 5 23 Dec 12 5 * Contested report On 29 November 2010 and 6 October 2011, the applicant scored unsatisfactory on his FAs The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s military service records, are contained in the evaluations by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial. DPSIM states the information provided by the applicant suggests he was diagnosed and treated for Non-Traumatic Compartment Syndrome; a condition which may have prevented him from achieving a passing score. However, the documentation provided is insufficient to make a final determination. The complete DPSIM evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states the applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB). He did not provide any supporting evidence to prove his claims nor did he provide a statement from his provider or concurrence from his unit commander. Without any supporting evidence to prove otherwise, they conclude that it was the applicant’s failure to maintain fitness standards that caused the report to be referred, not any other circumstance. It was ultimately the applicant’s responsibility to be ready to successfully pass the required fitness evaluation in the applicable component. Lastly, DPSIM provided an advisory denying the applicant’s request to remove the applicant’s FA stating the medical documentation does not support the FA failure. Since the FA remains valid, a removal of the contested EPR should not be entertained. It was the applicant’s responsibility to ensure he was properly prepared for his FA. Although he feels this was an injustice, there were avenues to ensure any medical issues were taken into consideration prior to the EPR close-out date; not only by the rating chain, but with proper authorities within the medical community. To change or void the contested EPR would be an injustice to other airman which have consulted with the medical community and received the proper medical profiles regarding the fitness program or the other airman which have met the regulatory Air Force requirements. 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 5 May 2014, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). 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. 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 and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. We note the applicant’s contention that he failed his FA, dated 29 November 2010, due to a pre-existing medical condition. However, the applicant has not provided any evidence to indicate the FA failure has been voided and as such, we find no basis to void the contested EPR. We further find no evidence that he was treated differently than any other member in a similar situation. 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 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-2013-02564 in Executive Session on 12 June 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-02564: Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated 28 Feb 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 7 Jan 14. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDE, dated 25 Apr 14. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 May 14. Panel Chair