RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02482 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1.  Her Fitness Assessment (FA) dated 22 Apr 11 be updated to reflect passing, canceled, or invalidated. 2.  Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period of 2 Oct 11 through 1 Oct 12, be voided. 3.  Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period of 2 Oct 12 through 18 Jan 13, be voided. 4.  Her grade of technical sergeant (E-6) be re-instated as of 1 Nov 08, her original date of rank (DOR). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: A preexisting medical condition caused a failure of multiple FAs resulting in referral EPRs and her demotion in rank. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was serving in the regular Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) at the time of the contested FA, and subsequently demoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) effective 29 Oct 12. On 31 Aug 10, the applicant participated in an FA and obtained an “unsatisfactory” composite scored of 69.80. On 5 Mar 11, a AF Form 422, Notification of Air Force Member’s Qualification Status, was issued clearing the applicant for the following FA components: Ht, Wt, AC, 1 Mile Walk, Push-ups, Sit-ups from 21 Mar 11 to 2 May 11. On 22 Apr 11, the applicant participated in an FA and obtained an “unsatisfactory” composite score of 68.10. On 25 Jul 11, an AF Form 422 was issued clearing the applicant for the following FA components: Ht, Wt, AC; exempting her from Running from 27 May 11 to 31 Aug 11, and Walking, Push-ups, and Crunches from 14 Jul 11 to 27 Jul 11. On 26 Jul 11, the applicant participated in an FA obtaining a “satisfactory” composite score of 76.00. On 31 Jan 12, the applicant participated in an FA obtaining a “satisfactory” composite score of 82.20. On 16 Aug 12, the applicant participated in an FA obtaining an “unsatisfactory” composite score of 72.25. On 22 Aug 12, the applicant was rendered a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failing two FAs in less than 24 months. Furthermore, she was originally scheduled to complete her FA on 31 Jul 12 and went non-current because she did not have a proper medical profile. On 2 Oct 12, the applicant’s commander initiated an administrative demotion against her in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs. He intended to demote her to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) for failing to fulfill her responsibilities as an Airman and keep fit. Specifically, on 1 Oct 12 she failed her third FA in less than a 24-month period. On 5 Oct 12, the applicant was rendered a referral EPR for the period of 2 Oct 11 through 1 Oct 12, for the following: Does Not Meet in Section III, item 3, pertaining to her failure to meet minimum physical fitness standards. The applicant did not provide comments. On 9 Oct 12, the applicant submitted a written response outlining her many achievements during her Air Force career, a background of her medical problems and treatment she was undergoing, and three character reference letters from other Airmen. On 11 Oct 12, the applicant’s commander reviewed her comments and recommended she be administratively demoted to E-5. On 16 Oct 12, the 23 WG/JA provided their concurrence with the commander’s administrative demotion action against the applicant. On 23 Oct 12, an AF Form 422 was issued exempting the applicant from Running no greater than 100 yards, no Sit-ups, no Push-ups, no prolonged walking, no carrying/arming/firing weapons, no climbing ropes, ladders, from 28 Aug 12 to 28 Aug 13. It went on to indicate that the applicant’s condition required a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) to determine fitness for continued worldwide duty and retention. On 26 Oct 12, the demotion authority approved the administrative demotion to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) with a date of rank (DOR) 29 Oct 12, effective 29 Oct 12. On 1 Nov 12, the applicant appealed the demotion authority’s decision and submitted additional written matters on her behalf. On 13 Nov 12, the wing commander disapproved her appeal. On 9 Jan 13, according to documentation provided by the applicant, her 1st sergeant requested a 23rd Medical Group medical provider to determine if a medical condition was the cause of her FA failures. The medical provider confirmed that she had a documented medical condition that precluded her from achieving a passing score for the 22 Apr 11 FA. He recommended the failed FA be cancelled/invalidated. On 29 Jan 13, the applicant’s rater notified her that she was going to be rendered a referral EPR for the period of 2 Oct 12 through 18 Jan 13 for the following: Does Not Meet Standards in Section III, items; 1-third FA failure and administrative demotion, 2-failed to adhere to proper dress and appearance standards, 3-failed to obtain a satisfactory FA four times w/in a two-year period, 5-failed to report for Mandatory Fitness Improvement Training-received an LOR, and Section V, Overall Performance Assessment-POOR. On 1 Feb 13, the applicant submitted a rebuttal to the contested EPR. She stated she understood and accepted that she failed in certain areas. Her physical fitness was an on-going issue that she had to deal with every day, and she has done all that she possibly could to try to meet and exceed standards. For the past four months she had done well in many of her job performance areas. On 1 Feb 13, the additional rater of the contested EPR carefully considered the applicant’s rebuttal comments, but concurred with her rater’s performance assessment. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are included at Exhibits C, D, and E, and the memorandum prepared by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant which is included at Exhibit F. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. After a thorough review of the documentation provided by the applicant, there is insufficient evidence to support her request to have her 22 Apr 11 FA removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). In accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, “Providers will list physical limitations on the AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report. 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 the member is given a composite exemption, member will continue to prepare for and be assessed on non-exempt components of the FA.” While the applicant provided a memorandum from the medical community stating she had a medical condition, she did not provide an AF Form 469 or AF Form 422, Notification of Air Force Member’s Qualification Status, specifically listing the applicant’s limitations for the Apr 11 FA. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. They do not believe that the applicant has provided sufficient substantiating documentation or evidence to prove her assertions that the EPR rendered for the period of 2 Oct 12 through 18 Jan 13 was rendered unfairly or unjustly. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. Additionally, it is considered to represent the rating chain's best judgment at the time it is rendered. To effectively challenge an evaluation, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain-not only for support, but also for clarification/explanation. The applicant has failed to provide any information from all the rating officials on the contested report. They determined that the report was accomplished IAW all applicable Air Force policies and procedures. The applicant has not substantiated that the contested report was not rendered accurately and in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. Notwithstanding the above, they did determine that the applicant’s referral EPR rendered for the period of 2 Oct 11 through 1 Oct 12, was not completed IAW AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems. In review of the subject EPR, it appears the commander non-concurred with the rating of a "4" and gave the applicant a rating of "3", but there is no AF Form 77, Letter of Evaluation, attached to the applicant’s personnel file explaining the non-concurrence to the original rating received. Based upon the clear violation of AFI 36-2406, they recommend the referral EPR rendered for the period of 2 Oct 11 through 1 Oct 12 be removed from her permanent record. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. On 2 Oct 12, the applicant received notification of demotion action under AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Program, paragraph 6.3.4, Failure to Keep Fit. Specifically, she failed three FAs within a 24-month period. The applicant was demoted to the rank of staff sergeant with a new date of rank (DOR) and effective date of 29 Oct 12. AFPC/DPSIM reviewed the case and recommended the applicant’s request to remove the 22 Apr 11 FA be denied based on lack of supporting evidence. Since the FA remains valid and the commander acted within his/her authority to demote the applicant, they recommend denial of the applicant’s request to remove the administrative demotion action and restore her rank to technical sergeant. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E. AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends granting relief, indicating sufficient evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. The Medical Consultant finds the medical evidence of record and the assessment by a medical provider appointed to conduct a review of the applicant’s fitness justifies removing from the record the applicant’s 22 Apr 11 FA failure. Along with removing the 22 Apr 11 failed FA, he also recommends reversing any administrative actions that can be attributed to the cumulative effect of that FA failure. It does appear that the 22 Apr 11 FA failure (3rd FA failure within 2 years) may have been heavily linked with the decision to also demote the applicant. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit F. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force and the AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 5 Oct 15, 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 concerning the applicant’s requests to remove the referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 2 Oct 12 through 18 Jan 13. We took careful notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we do not find the evidence provided sufficient to override the rationale provided by the AFPC/DPSID. Thus, we agree with their opinion and the recommendation and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting this portion of the relief sought in this application. 4.  Notwithstanding our determination above, sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice that warrants partial relief. With regard to the applicant’s request for her fitness assessment (FA) dated 22 Apr 11 to be updated to reflect passing, canceled, or invalidated, we note the AFPC/DPSIM comments indicating that requested relief should be denied, however, based on the supporting documentation provided, we find the applicant’s medical condition had a direct impact on her ability to pass the referenced FA and therefore agree with the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s recommendation that corrective action is warranted. In this respect, the AFBCMR Medical Consultant noted the medical provider’s 9 January 2013 memorandum recommended the contested FA be invalidated due to an existing medical condition that should have resulted in the applicant’s medical exemption from all FA components, except the abdominal circumference (AC) which she passed. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant concurred with the medical provider’s recommendation and, in addition, recommended that any administrative actions attributed to the cumulative effect of that FA failure, be reversed. We agree with their recommendations. With regard to the applicant’s request to void her referral EPR rendered for the period 2 Oct 2011 through 1 Oct 2012; we note the issuance of this referral report relied on the failed FA. Additionally noted is that AFPC/DPSID recommended approval to void this referral EPR due to procedural error. As such, we recommend the contested report be declared void and removed from her military record. Since we have favorably considered the correction to the applicant’s FA and contested EPR, the demotion action that was based on her failure to meet physical fitness standards by failing her third FA on 1 Oct 12 and receipt of a referral EPR, should be reversed. Additionally, we believe her EPR for the period 2 Oct 12 through 18 Jan 13, should be corrected to remove any reference to her third FA failure, the administrative demotion to the rank of staff sergeant, and any related administration actions based on the favorable recommendations regarding removal of the contested FA and reinstatement of rank. Accordingly, we recommend the records be corrected as indicated below. 5.  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 RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that: a.  The 22 April 2011 Fitness Assessment (FA) is void and removed from the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). b.  The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period of 2 October 2011 through 1 October 2012, is void and removed from her records. c.  The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period of 2 October 2012 through 18 January 2013, is void and re-accomplished to remove all statements and references to the third fitness assessment failure, the demotion to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) and any other related administrative actions taken. d.  The grade of technical sergeant (E-6) is re-instated with a date of rank (DOR) and effective date of 1 November 2008. e.  Supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) beginning with cycle 13E7, provided the re-accomplished EPR rendered for the period 2 October 2012 through 18 January 2013 is no longer a referral report. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-02482 in Executive Session on 12 Nov 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-02482 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Jun 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 2 Jul 14. Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 14 Sep 15. Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 29 Sep 15. Exhibit F.  Memorandum, AFBCMR/Medical Consultant,   dated 30 Sep 15. Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Oct 15.