RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02985 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Fitness Assessment (FA) dated 23 May 13 be invalidated. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The contested FA was improperly administered and was in error due to malfunctioning heart rate monitor (HRM). She states it constantly reset during her 1-mile walk and read random numbers through the duration of the walk. Prior to the test, she states she repeatedly asked for a new HRM, but her request was denied. While waiting for the test to begin, her HRM continued to beep and read 211 and continued to beep and read random numbers from 99-211 during her walk. When crossing the finish line, she states it read 157, read 211 while waiting to get it recorded, and then read 173, which was recorded. She questioned two male Fitness Assessment Cell (FAC) monitors and one female FAC monitor at the conclusion of the test and was told the HRM could fluctuate if the watch gets too close to the monitor. The test monitor emailed her with instructions on how to get test removed from record. In support of her request, applicant provided her fitness score sheet, a memorandum for record from applicant and a memorandum from a witness. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force on active duty in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5). The applicant took a Fitness Assessment (FA) on 23 May 13, with a composite score of 32.00, unsatisfactory fitness level. The applicant completed the 1.0 mile walk in 14 minutes and 34 seconds with a recorded heart rate of 173 and a calculated V02 of 31. The applicant’s VO2 max value of ? 31 was exceeded, rendering the applicant’s score unsatisfactory. Had the applicant’s heart rate been taken at 157 as she states it was when she crossed the finish line, her max V02 would have been calculated at 34, which would have met the criteria for a satisfactory score. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial due to the lack of supporting evidence. After a thorough review of the documentation provided by the applicant, there is insufficient evidence to support the claim. She has not provided documentation from the FAC validating her claim; also, she has not provided documentation from the Unit Commander indicating his/her decision to invalidate the FA. The AFPC/DPSIM complete evaluation, with attachments is at Exhibit B. ____________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: She visited the FAC and was unable to obtain any new information due to personnel changeovers. She filed a complaint with the 11th Wing Inspector General and was informed by the IG that there is no existing guidance/procedures requiring labeling, routine testing, or swapping out for the HRMs. She was also informed the AFI was being re-written and HRMs would no longer be used. In support of these findings, she submitted a letter from the 11th WG/IG dated 18 Jul 2013, an email dated 23 May 13 from the FA monitor, and an email dated 11 Jun 13 from the Health and Wellness Center. Additionally, in a letter dated 2 Apr 14, she claims the FAC violated procedures annotated in the manual of operations for the HRM. She contends the FAC did not take action to ensure there was no one within three feet of her heart rate transmitter and that the process used to clean the HRM was improper. Either of these errors could have caused the HRM to malfunction according to the manufacturer. In further support of her claim, she submits an email dated 31 Mar 13 from the manufacturer, a copy of the Polar FT1/FT2 User Manual, and Maintenance Tips printed from the manufacturer’s website dated 2 Apr 14. The applicant’s complete responses, with attachments, are at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ 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 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. While the applicant has provided medical documentation indicating a medical condition existed at the time of the contested FA, he/she has not met his/her burden of proving it should be removed from the AFFMS. In this respect, we note the letter from the applicant’s medical provider indicates he had a medical condition but no letter of support from the commander was provided requesting the FA be invalidated. Should the applicant provide such evidence, we would be willing to reconsider this request. However, in view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ 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. ________________________________________________________________ Due to the unavailability of XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXX has signed as Acting Panel Chair. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-02985 in Executive Session on 21 May 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-02985: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Jun 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 17 Dec 13, w/atchs. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Feb 14. Exhibit D. Letters, Applicant, dated 27 Mar & 2 Apr 14, w/atchs. 1 2