AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
SEP 1 7 1998
DOCKET NO: 98-00332
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: NO
cbhe be upgraded to allow enlistment.
at Exhibit A.
Q" reenlistment eligibility (RE)
Applicant I s submission is
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request
and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the
application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was
forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D ) .
As of this date, no response has been received by this office.
After careful consideration of applicant's request and the
available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of
error or injustice to warrant corrective action. The facts and
opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the
evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which
entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or
appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to
disturb the existing record.
Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and
will only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant
evidence which was not reasonably available at the time the
application was filed.
Members of the Board Mr. Henry C. Saunders, Mr. Joseph G.
Diamond, and Ms. Peggy E. Gordon considered this application on
3 September 1998 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36-2603, and the governing statu
1552..
dik.
7'
Chair
Exhibits
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinion
D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
3 June 1998
98-00332
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: BCMR Medical Consultant
1535 Command Drive, EE Wing, 3rd Floor
Andrews AFB MD 20762-7002
SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Military Records
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant was separated from the Air Force with 10% disability
and severance pay on 16 October 1995 after serving 2 years, 6 months, and 18 days on active
duty. He received a 2Q reentry code secondary to his disability separation and applies now to
have this changed to one that would allow him to reenter the military.
FACTS: The applicant was permitted to join the Air Force with a finding of pes planus (flat
feet) on his enlistment physical examination performed on 18 November 1992. After
completing basic training and tech school, the applicant was serving at his first duty assignment
when, in January 1994, he injured his right foot stepping off a truck. From this point on he was
seen frequently with complaints of pain in the foot which eventually led to his meeting a Medical
Evaluation Board on 11 April 1995 with referral to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). On 10
May 1995 the Informal PEB recommended separation with severance pay and 10% disability
for chronic sesamoidoitis (inflammation of a bone in the foot) with his underlying, and existinq
prior to service, condition of flat feet being the significant problem aggravating the condition.
This recommendation was upheld through the Formal PEB appearance with finalization of the
decision coming from the Air Force Personnel Council on 3 August 1995. In his request for
correction of records the applicant says that the condition for which he was discharged no
longer exists, thereby justifying the request as submitted.
DISCUSSION: The trivial trauma suffered by the applicant in stepping off the vehicle in
January 1994 was not felt to be significant in the continuing problem he experienced with a
painful foot. Rather, the opinion of medical authorities was that his developmental defect of flat
feet was the real culprit in his continuing difficulties. Regardless of his having had only minor
foot pains secondary to the foot defect, the worsening problems experienced during 1994
rendered the applicant unfit for continued military service, and he was appropriately evaluated
and handled in the disability evaluation system. His application package requesting a change in
his reentry code does not address resolution of his problem. A rating evaluation by the
Department of Veterans Affairs dated 20 July 1996 shows he receives benefits for continuing
sesamoiditis and service-connected hypertension. The package does not contain more recent
statements regarding his current condition.
Evidence of record indicates that the applicant was properly evaluated and compensated for
his unfitting foot pain with aggravation by an EPTS condition of flat footedness. There is no
evidence that a higher rating was indicated at the time of his disposition, and there is no
evidence that his basic underlying problem has resolved. Therefore, a change of records as
requested is not recommended.
Page 2
AFBCMR Case # 98-00332
RECOMMENDATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that the applicant's
request for a change of his reentry code to one that would allow return to the military be denied.
FREDERICK W. HORNICK, Col., USAF, MC, FS
Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR
Medical Advisor SAF Personnel Council
Based on the preponderance of evidence, and after a thorough review of the entire case file, the IPEB found that had these conditions been identified and presented to the board in the form of a special review prior to his discharge, they would have acknowledged their existence; however, they would not have considered them unfitting, ratable, or compensable under the provisions of military disability law and policy. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02585
She was issued an L3 profile and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).“Ankle pain” and “chronic bilateral foot pain” were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AFI 48-123. The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the VASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02637
The available records do not reflect that he reported any history of foot pain or flat feet while he was on active duty in the Air Force. The Consultant further notes that service medical records for the period the applicant was on active duty in the Army (1988-1989) contain no entries for foot pain except on his Army separation physical exam. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-02637
The available records do not reflect that he reported any history of foot pain or flat feet while he was on active duty in the Air Force. The Consultant further notes that service medical records for the period the applicant was on active duty in the Army (1988-1989) contain no entries for foot pain except on his Army separation physical exam. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01358
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01358 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her uncharacterized separation be changed to an honorable separation. The podiatrist told her that she had a pulled tendon in the arch of her left foot and that the alignment was off in both her legs and feet. ...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-01009
The Informal Reconsideration PEB adjudicated the pes valgoplanus and secondary plantar fasciitis condition and the right wrist pain condition as unfitting, rated 20% and 0% respectively, with application of the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) and specified application of the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain policy respectively. RECOMMENDATION : The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows; and, that the...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, reviewed this application and states that evidence of record and medical examinations prior to separation indicate the applicant was fit and medically qualified for continued military service or appropriate separation and did not have any physical or mental' condition which would have warranted consideration under the provisions of AFI 36-3212. This, obviously, did not apply to the applicant, as he had been found fit to return to...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01685
When seen in primary care a week later, he had a normal gait, but continued to report pain. He again reported persistent pain when seen in PT on 4 May 2004, but had a normal posture, gait, and ankle range-of-motion (ROM). I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062946C070421
COUNSEL CONTENDS : That although the applicant concurred with the findings of the physical evaluation board (PEB), it was not an informed concurrence. On 24 October 2000, an informal PEB found the applicant unfit for duty by reason of chronic bilateral plantar fasciitis due to bilateral pes planovalgus (diagnoses one and two) rated as moderate in accordance with U. S. Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) Policy/Guidance Memorandum #12, Analogous Ratings, dated 6 December 1999 under...
The bottom line of these various documents apparently is that applicant's 1993 "In Line of Duty" (LOD) injury did not result in disability or warrant disability processing and that his February 1995 "EPTS---LOD not applicable" (not LOD) injury resulted in both his disqualification for further Reserve duty and his ineligibility for disability processing, in accordance with the applicable directives [AFI 36-2910 & AFI 36-32121. SGP determined “the [disquallfvmg] medical condition existed...