RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02010 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation be changed. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She did not have a foot problem that existed prior to service (EPTS). Her medical prescreening documents show no issues with her feet. She needs this changed so she can be eligible for Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits at the 100 percent rate. In support of her appeal, the applicant submits a copy of DD Form 2807, Medical Prescreen of Medical History Report, dated 29 Jun 01. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) on 21 November 2003, with a finding of left valgus status post bunionectomy with chronic pain, EPTS without service aggravation and low back pain secondary to herniated nucleus pulposus. The IPEB found the member unfit and recommended discharge under provisions other than Chapter 61, Title 10, United States Code (USC). On 2 Dec 03, the applicant non- concurred with the findings and requested a formal hearing with counsel. On 3 Feb 04 the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) reviewed the case with medical records and recommended discharge under provisions other than Chapter 61, Title 10, USC. The FPEB noted: “... The member testified her condition began while wearing combat boots in Tech School. The Board further opines wearing boots is not uniquely military. Signs or symptoms of chronic disease identified so soon after the day of entry into Military Service (usually within 180 days) that the disease could not have originated in that short a period will be accepted as proof that the disease manifested prior to entrance into active Military Service per DODI 1332.38, part 4, para E3.p4.5.4.1. " The applicant non-concurred with the findings and requested a final review by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC). On 26 Mar 04 the SAFPC directed the applicant be discharged under other than Chapter 61, Title 10, USC. SAFPC considered the applicant's rebuttal letter contending service- aggravation for her medical condition. They noted in their memo: "The Board opines the underlying medical condition that resulted in the friction injuries (blister formation) to the member's foot so early following her entry into military service, would not have occurred were it not for the pre- existing bony misalignment (hallux valgus) of the first metatarsal joint of her left foot. This Board, like previous board, opines the member's left foot trauma occurred during the month of her entry into military service, represents the expected natural progression of condition, and does not represent permanent service service-aggravation. Although the member has undergone a surgical procedure to correct her foot abnormality, the procedure alone does not automatically incur permanent service-aggravation, even with the expected complications of the procedure." A discharge message was sent that established her date of separation as 10 May 04. The applicant served 02 years, 6 months and 25 days of active duty. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSD recommends denial, stating, in part, that they did not find an error in the disability process or the applicant’s separation. The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reiterates her original contention that she did not have a foot problem prior to entry into military service. In addition, she requests in the alternative that her reason for separation be changed to reflect service – aggravation. In support of her response, the applicant provides extracts from her records. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission, including her response to the Air Force evaluation, in judging the merits of the case; however, the Air Force office of primary responsibility has adequately addressed the issues presented by the applicant and we are in agreement with their opinion and recommendation that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-02010 in Executive Session on 16 February 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 May 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 29 Sep 11. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Oct 11. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated. Panel Chair