RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-03710

  	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING: YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

a.	Change his separation (SPD) code, as appropriate.

b.	He receive compensation for lost pay that was due to the termination of his enlistment.

c.	Reinstate his enlistment bonus and subsequent taxes.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was involuntarily discharged on the grounds of failing four (4) Fitness Assessments (FAs) within a 24-month period.  However, it was recently discovered that the track was measured incorrectly, resulting in running more than the required 1.5 miles.  He would like his SPD code changed and be compensated for lost pay due to his enlistment being terminated.  In addition, he asks for compensation for the enlistment bonus money that was taken out of his final paycheck, along with the tax money that he would have received had the bonus not been taken away.    

In October 2016, it was discovered that 17 running tracks across Air Force installations worldwide were improperly measured.  The indoor running track at Osan Air Base, Korea, was measured at 120 feet per lap over the required 1.5-mile distance that resulted in an extra 1,500 feet of distance.  He failed the FA by roughly 8 seconds.  Based on this information, he would have met standards; thus, the test would not have been a failure and he should not have been involuntarily separated from the service.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 2 Mar 04, the applicant initially entered active duty in the Regular Air Force.

A resume of the applicant’s FA results are as follows:

	Date	Composite Score		Rating

  26 Jan 12	73.30	Unsatisfactory
  28 Jul 11	86.80	Satisfactory
  21 Jan 11	77.80	Satisfactory
  10 Dec 10	75.60	Unsatisfactory
  13 Sep 10	76.30	Unsatisfactory
  22 Jun 10	72.05	Poor

On 3 Apr 12, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending discharge for failure to meet minimum fitness standards under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Chapter 5, paragraph 5.26.6 (Physical Standards) with an honorable service characterization.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification on the same date.  After a legal review, the case was found to be legally sufficient.  

On 28 May 12, the applicant received an honorable discharge and was credited with 8 years, 2 months, and 27 days of active service.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits C and D.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2SSM recommends the application be denied.  The track mismeasurements at Osan AB, Korea and Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ, did not apply to the failed FAs documented on the applicant’s record.  The applicant failed four fitness assessments within a 24-month timeframe; therefore, the commander was required to make a discharge or retention recommendation to the installation commander in accordance with the governing instructions.   

Additionally, Osan AB, Korea, did not report non-compliance during the timeframe the applicant was assigned to Osan AB.  Osan AB reported non-compliance of the aerobic course between 20 May 2012 and 17 October 2016 in which the full course was found to be 120 feet over the required distance.  Prior to Osan AB, the applicant was stationed at Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ, although the news article provided by the applicant states Davis-Monthan AFB reported their aerobic course non-compliant; however, they reported to AFPC and AFSVA/SVI as compliant; therefore, no further actions were required by the base. Additionally, the applicant was not listed as a member who was affected by the track mismeasurements, because it was outside the timeframe of non-compliance; consequently, the applicant did not receive a memorandum stating his FA records were corrected. 

The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denying the application.  The commander provided sufficient documentation to warrant discharge.  Based on review of the applicant’s request and the master of personnel record, there is no error or injustice with the discharge processing.      

The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 10 Sep 18 for comment (Exhibit E). In response, the applicant states he experienced problems finding administrative avenues of relief prior to coming to the Air Force Board for Corrections of Military Records (AFBCMR). Unfortunately, there are no records of non-compliance due to his request not being heeded.  He spoke with his fitness monitor and attempted to contest the second of the four failures on grounds of his pushups being counted by a marine veteran.  The veteran counted a 4 count pushup whereas the Air Force fitness monitor counts 2 count pushups resulting in his pushup count being nearly half that of the test 3 months prior (44 pushups on 13 Sep 10 and 21 pushups on 10 Dec 10) while in the remedial fitness program. He had a passing score of 78.6 percent on 16 Apr 12; however, this score is not recorded on his fitness record; he provides proofs in the form of email communications from his legal advisor to his First Sergeant. He was never informed that the test on 22 Jun 10 was considered a failure under the NEW fitness regulation when the test was performed under the PRIOR fitness regulation and no remedial action was ever initiated for that test.

They found the mismeasurement and reported the measurements in May 2012; however, he does not recall any measurement of the indoor track occurring. He believes that the track was incorrectly measured, which was not questioned at the time due to his belief that all indoor tracks were built to the same specifications and verified at the time of construction, but appears to not be the case even though all indoor 1.5 mile runs are 14.5 laps.
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit E.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was not timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendations of AFPC/DP2SSM and DP2SSTM and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

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 the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

The application was adjudicated without a personal appearance.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2017-03710 in Executive Session on 10 Oct 18 and 2 Nov 18:

, Vice Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 13 Dec 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SSM, dated 29 Dec 17.
Exhibit D: Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 2 Jul 18.
Exhibit E:	Notification Email of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 10 Sep 18.
Exhibit F:  Letter, Applicant’s Rebuttal, undated.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9 pertaining to Docket Number BC-2017-03710.