RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01933 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His Fitness Assessments (FAs) dated October 2010 through December 2012 be removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). 2. His demotion be rescinded and his rank of technical sergeant (TSgt) be restored and that he receive monetary compensation 7 October 2011 to present. 3. His Referral Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) from 2010 through 2013 be removed from his record. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was administratively demoted twice, forced to attend a retention board and placed on probation and rehabilitation (P&R) due to failing to maintain PT standards. No other disciplinary actions were taken against him since 2010 and contend a legitimate medical reason was why he was consistently unable to pass the PT test. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: Per special order AA-003, 21 October 2011, the applicant was demoted from the rank of TSgt to the permanent grade of SSgt effective and with a DOR of 7 October 2011 for failure to maintain fitness levels (AFI 36-2502, paragraph 6.3.5). A review of his Military Personnel Data System record indicates that his rank was restored to TSgt effective 3 April 2012. He was administratively demoted a second time from the rank of TSgt to the permanent grade of SSgt effective and with a DOR of 7 November 2012 for failure to keep fit per special order AA- 048, 16 November 2012. On 1 October 2014, the applicant retired in the grade of SSgt after serving 17 years, 2 months and 8 days on active duty. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs), which are attached at Exhibits B through E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant took nine fitness assessments between October 2010 and December 2012, and scored a satisfactory on two of those FAs. The applicant stated that he had a legitimate medical reason for not being able to score a satisfactory score on the other assessments. The applicant provided medical documentation to report knee pain between April 2013 and October 2013. The applicant also provided a note from his medical provider that stated no long distance running for fitness tests due to a permanent disability for his right knee between 2008 and 2013 as well as a progress note from his medical provider that stated he should only perform the walking requirement only. The applicant did not provide any other medical documentation, such as the AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report, or AF Form 422, Notification of Air Force Member’s Qualification Status. IAW AFI 36-2905, 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 EP/FPM. Unless member is given a composite exemption, member will continue to prepare for and be assessed on non-exempt components of the FA.” After a thorough review of the documentation provided by the applicant, there is insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s claim. While the applicant provided a memorandum from the medical community to state that he had a medical condition, the applicant did not provide an AF Form 469 or AF Form 422. Please note, since the medical provider's documentation stated no long distance running, if the cardio component were exempt the applicant would still not have scored a satisfactory result on four of the seven failed FAs due to waist measurement. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The request was timely filed within three years of discovery of the alleged error or injustice. The applicant has exhausted all available administrative avenues of relief before applying to the AFBCMR. By the order of the Secretary of the Air Force, the Air Force developed various program to meet the Congressionally-mandated end strength while positioning the force to meet mission requirements. The Quality Force Review Board (QFRB) considered specific negative Reporting Identifiers (RIs), Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) codes, Assignment Availability Codes (AACs), and/or Grade Status Reasons (GSRs). Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) was offered to those airmen with at least 15 years of service who are not retained by the QFRB. Airmen not selected for retention by the QFRB would be required to apply to retire with an effective date no later than 1 October 2014. The board convened 5-16 May 2014 and official notification was made no earlier than 5 June 2014 to Senior Raters (SRs) and unit commanders. The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 23 July 1997. At the time of QFRB selection the applicant had a RE code 2E (Disqualified Airman (for cause), which was one of the negative quality indicators; making him eligible for QFRB. On 5 June 2014 the applicant was notified of his non-selection for retention via the board. The applicant had 16 years and 11 months of service and was offered TERA with a mandatory Date of Separation (DOS) of 30 September 2014, retirement effective 1 October 2014. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states the application was submitted in a timely manner. The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 10 March 2006 due to his separation. The applicant contends that the three referral EPR’s he was rendered were unjust due to a pre-existing medical condition which precluded him from passing seven of eight fitness assessments between 2010 through 2012. The applicant provided a statement from his physician stating the applicant had ongoing issues with his right knee since 2008 and should avoid long distance running; however, the applicant has failed to provide substantiating evidence such as an AF Form 469 or AF Form 422 or other relevant medical documentation during this period that could have corroborated on any medical conditions which the applicant claims to have suffered from. HQ AFPC/DPSIM provided an advisory stating the applicant did not provide clear evidence that his medical conditions directly affected his performance and recommended to deny relief sought to remove the failed FA’s. Based on HQ AFPC/DPSIM’s recommendation, and the lack of substantiating documentation provided in the case, the referral fitness comment and marking in Section III should be considered valid and appropriate as recorded on the contested evaluation, and in accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and procedures. The applicant provided only his personal view of the circumstances with insufficient evidence that would demonstrate an error or an injustice. The removal of the contested evaluation should be denied and recommend the AFBCMR conclude the same. On 12 January 2010, Senior AF 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. AFI 36-2905 was effective 1 July 2010 and it states “It is every airman’s responsibility to maintain the standards set forth in this AFI - 365 days a year. Being physically fit allows you to properly support the Air Force mission. The goal of the Fitness Program (FP) is to motivate all members to participate in a year-round physical conditioning program that emphasizes total fitness, to include proper aerobic conditioning, strength/flexibility training, and healthy eating.” Having a waist measurement of between 40 to 41 inches at the time of the subject fitness assessments is by definition not physically fit and not in keeping with Air Force standards, nor was it a recipe for successfully passing an Air Force fitness evaluation, which the applicant failed to do. Therefore, we would still consider the fitness failure as well as the “Does Not Meet” marking in Section III, Block 3 to be valid and appropriate as recorded on the contested evaluation, and in accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and procedures. It was ultimately the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that he was properly prepared for his fitness assessments. Although the applicant may feel that this was an injustice, there were avenues to ensure that any medical issues were taken into consideration prior to the report close-out date; not only by the rating chain, but with the proper authorities within the medical community. Therefore to change or void these evaluations 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 airmen which have met the regulatory AF requirements. The applicant has not provided sufficient substantiating documentation or evidence to prove his assertions that the contested evaluations were rendered unfairly or unjustly, and has merely offered his view of events in the light that is most beneficial to him. Therefore to change or void these evaluations would be an injustice to other airmen which have consulted with the appropriate channels and received the proper guidance regarding the fitness program or the other airmen which have met the regulatory AF requirements. An evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. They contend 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. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE states IAW AFI 36-2502, paragraph 6.3.5., airmen may be demoted for failing to maintain or demonstrate the ability and willingness to attain physical standards. If the commander has sufficient reason to initiate demotion action, use the entire military record in deciding whether demotion is appropriate. IAW AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, Chapter 10, Paragraph 10.1.2., Unit Commanders or equivalent may take adverse administrative action upon a member’s unsatisfactory fitness score on an official FA. Attachment 14 provides commanders guidance when selecting the appropriate administrative and personnel actions for members who fail to attain physical fitness standards. This table is only illustrative and is not binding. Unit CCs exercise complete discretion in selecting responsive action(s). Commanders may use more than one action per failure. AFPC/DPSIM reviewed the case and recommended the applicant’s request to remove the FAs between October 2010 and December 2012 be denied based on lack of supporting evidence. They further stated that the applicant would not have scored satisfactorily on four of the seven failed FAs even if the cardio component was exempt. The applicant requests only the administrative demotion received in October 2011 be removed; however, the applicant’s commander reinstated his rank in April 2012, making this a moot point. Since the FAs remain valid and the commander acted within his/her authority to demote the applicant on both occasions, they recommend denial of the applicant’s request to remove either administrative demotion action. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 31 July 2015 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit G). 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. 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 (OPRs) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Processes and policies were available that were not utilized by the applicant to support his assertion of a physical limitation and claim of inaccurate EPR’s. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested 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-2014-01933 in Executive Session on 22 October 2014 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-01933 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 May 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 2 July 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 19 November 2014. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 1 July 2015. Exhibit E. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 14 July 2015. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 July 2015. 5