RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04038 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Fitness Assessments (FA) scores, dated 26 May 11, 26 Sep 12, 29 Nov 12, and 4 Apr 13, be removed from his records. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His Primary Care Physician (PCP) determined that he had a heart condition that prevented him from passing the contested FAs; therefore, he should have been exempted from the components he failed. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5). On 26 May 11, the applicant participated in the contested FA and attained an overall composite score of 35.60, resulting in an unsatisfactory rating. On 26 Sept 12, the applicant participated in the contested FA and attained an overall composite score of 30.00, resulting in an unsatisfactory rating. On 29 Nov 12, the applicant participated in the contested FA and attained an overall composite score of 28.60, resulting in an unsatisfactory rating. During this FA, the applicant did not complete the cardio component. On 29 Nov 12, the applicant reported to the Emergency Room (ER); his discharge diagnosis was chest pain, palpitations, and exertional headache. The ER found nothing that required hospitalization; however, he was given two day release from his normal activities and provided with instructions to follow up at the Military Treatment Facility (MTF) the next day. On 4 Dec 12, the applicant was evaluated by a civilian medical provider for palpitations and atypical chest pain. It was also noted that the applicant was a cigarette smoker with no previous cardiac history. The applicant’s stress echocardiogram was negative for ischemia, and the applicant was strongly encouraged to begin smoking cessation as it is a cardiac risk factor. On 17 Dec 12, the applicant reported palpitations but indicated they were better. The provider indicated the applicant’s palpitations were not life threatening. The applicant requested a medication to help suppress them and was prescribed medication to take at bedtime. A two-month follow up was recommended. On 19 Feb 13, the applicant denied recurrent palpitations since starting the medication the provider had prescribed. Smoking cessation was strongly encouraged. Annual cardiovascular follow up was recommended in the absence of symptoms. On 4 Apr 13, the applicant participated in the contested FA and attained an overall composite score of 35.80, resulting in an unsatisfactory rating. On 1 May 13, the civilian medical provider diagnosed the applicant with Ventricular Tachycardia and prescribed medication to aide in controlling his heart rate. The medical provider also indicated this condition will affect the applicant’s performance during high demand activities. It was advised that the applicant be observed during such activities. On 27 Jun 13, the applicant’s military medical provider issued an AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report, which indicated the applicant was restricted from performing the cardio component (1.5 mile run or 1 mile walk) of the FA. On 8 Jul 13, the applicant’s medical provider performed an evaluation and records review to determine if there were medical conditions that precluded the applicant from achieving a passing score on the contested FAs. The provider determined the applicant had a medical condition that precluded him from achieving a passing score in a non-exempt portion of the contested FAs. On 26 Feb 14, the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB) corrected the applicant’s records to reflect that he was exempt from the cardio component of the contested FAs; however, said corrections had no impact on the overall rating of the 26 May 11, 26 Sep 12, and 29 Nov 12 FAs as they all remain unsatisfactory; however, the administrative correction did result in the 4 Apr 13 FA being a satisfactory rating. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) which is included at Exhibit B. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial, due to lack of supporting evidence to substantiate an error or injustice. While the applicant provided a medical memorandum and the medical provider stated that he had a documented medical condition that precluded him from achieving a passing score on the FA, there was no evidence of what the applicant's limitations were for each fitness assessment. The applicant's AF Form 469 that was provided only covers the limitations between 27 June 2013 and 01 October 2013 The applicant provided a letter from his medical provider indicating that he "had a documented medical condition that precluded him from achieving a passing score in a non-exempt portion of the FA test" for all four FAs in question, and the applicant provided an AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report, dated 27 Jun 2013, only restricting the applicant from running and walking. However, because AFI 36-2905, Fitness, paragraph 4.2.2 "Providers will list physical limitations on the AF Form 469; when physical limitations preclude the member from participating in fitness activities for greater than 30 days and/or accomplishing the FA, the member will follow local policy to obtain an exercise prescription and determination of FA exemption from the Exercise Physiologist. Unless member is given a composite exemption, member will continue to prepare for and be assessed on non-exempt components of the FA." and paragraph 4.2.2.2, "the provider will specify the length of time required for physical limitations." A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 12 May 14 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). 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 opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our determination the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, we find no basis to recommend granting any relief beyond that rendered administratively. 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-2013-04038 in Executive Session on 24 Sep 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Aug 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 10 Mar 14, w/atchs. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 May 14. 1 2