Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02637
Original file (BC-2002-02637.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  02-02637
            INDEX CODE 108.01  108.02
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be given service connection and compensation for his flat feet, and
that his Medical History Report entrance exam,  dated  23 Apr  79,  be
corrected.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Report of Examination is fraudulent on the part of  the  examining
physician, who clearly noted that he was not qualified for enlistment.
 He has been diagnosed with flat feet  and  heel  spurs.   He  endured
chronic pain throughout his military service. The overuse and repeated
pounding on hard surfaces while marching and standing  post  extremely
weakened his foot’s arch.  The  chronic  pain  limits  his  employment
opportunities. Prior to his enlistment, he  had  no  medical  problems
with  his  lower  extremities.  He  provides  a  26  Oct  00  podiatry
evaluation indicating he has flat feet and tight Achilles tendon  with
outward deviation of the foot.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Notations on the entrance exam indicate the  applicant  was  initially
rejected for being overweight; however,  on  repeat  weighing  he  was
found to be within weight standards and was accepted for entrance. His
foot examination was recorded as normal. He entered active duty on  23
May 79 and served as a security  policeman/specialist.  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.  After serving
his term of active obligated service, he was honorably released in the
grade of sergeant and transferred to the Air Force Reserve  on  22 May
83. He had 4 years of active duty. On  22  May  85  he  was  honorably
discharged from the Air Force Reserves.

According  to  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)  records,  the
applicant served in the US Army from 5 May 88 to 29 Jun 89. No further
details are available.

He first filed a claim for disability compensation with the DVA on  29
Aug 00. DVA records reflect the first mention of a knee condition  was
in a treatment report on 8 May 98  after  the  applicant  fell  off  a
ladder at work and injured his knee. A 9 Jan 00 treatment report noted
he had left knee pain since a  motor  vehicle  accident  three  months
previously.  A 6 Feb 01 DVA rating decision denied service  connection
for  flat  feet,  lower  extremity  condition,  knee  condition,  back
condition and depression as there was no record of a disability in the
military and no link between the military and the current disability.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant  provides   details   regarding   the
applicant’s medical situation. He asserts that there  are  no  entries
for foot pain or flat feet for the Air Force active duty  period.  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.
That Army exam, dated 21 Mar 89, documents his complaint  of  numbness
in his feet and lower back after standing for long  periods  of  time.
The physical exam documented normal strength without  muscle  atrophy,
intact reflexes, and negative tests for sciatic nerve root irritation.
His feet were annotated as normal on that exam. Review of the  medical
records finds no evidence that the applicant had difficulties with his
feet while in the Air Force. Further medical  documentation  from  the
Army five years later shows no evidence  of  significant  difficulties
from flat feet that would have justified disability discharge from the
Army. Therefore, denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPD advises that an examination of  the  applicant’s  medical
records was accomplished just prior to his voluntary  separation.  The
review resulted in a decision that no  requirement  for  a  separation
physical exam was necessary. It is assumed from this action  that  the
medical authority felt no serious medical condition  existed  at  that
time which would have precluded  him  from  completing  his  obligated
service. Records clearly show he was reasonably capable of  performing
the duties of his office, grade, rank and rating right  up  until  the
time of his separation.  They agree with the AFCMR Medical  Consultant
and also recommend denial.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 22 Nov 02 for review and comment within 30 days.   As  of
this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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. After a thorough  review  of  the
evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that he should be compensated for flat feet or that  the  23
Apr 79 entrance exam should be altered.  The  applicant’s  contentions
are  duly  noted;  however,  we  do  not  find  these   uncorroborated
assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to  override
the evidence of record or the rationale provided by the AFBCMR Medical
Consultant and the Air Force. The applicant submits no  evidence  that
he had difficulties with his feet while in the Air Force or  that  the
service is culpable for his present  day  medical  problems.  Further,
after separating from the Air Force, he continued his military service
in the Army and apparently had no  medical  condition  that  warranted
disability discharge. We therefore adopt the  rationale  expressed  as
the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed  to  sustain
his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice. In view
of the above and  absent  persuasive  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we
conclude this appeal should be denied.

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  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of material error  or  injustice;  that  the
application was denied without a personal  appearance;  and  that  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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 20 February 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Mary J. Johnson, Member
                  Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
02637 was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jul 02, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 Oct 02.
  Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 19 Nov 02.
  Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Nov 02.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-02637

    Original file (BC-2002-02637.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00871

    Original file (PD2011-00871.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    SCOPE OF REVIEW : The Board wishes to clarify that the scope of its review as defined in Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 6040.44 (Enclosure 3, paragraph 5.e.2) is limited to those conditions which were determined by the PEB to be specifically unfitting for continued military service; or, when requested by the CI, those conditions “identified but not determined to be unfitting by the PEB.” The ratings for unfitting conditions are reviewed in all cases; and, the CI’s opinion that the...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00402

    Original file (PD2012-00402.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The CI underwent the first MEB exam for bilateral lower leg pain. Alternative coding using the VA rating separating the tendinosis from the Morton neuroma disabilities was also considered reasonable, but would also raise the military- 3 PD1200402 specific issue of fitness when the NARSUM did not specify duty impairment from any mid, or distal foot condition. RECOMMENDATION: The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04321

    Original file (BC-2011-04321.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 2 Sep 09, based on a review of the medical evidence the FPEB determined a formal hearing was not required and found the applicant unfit for continued military service and recommended permanent retirement with a combined compensable disability rating of 50 percent (30 percent for left total knee replacement, EPTS-Service Aggravated; 20 percent for bilateral subtalar coalition with degenerative changes, EPTS-Service Aggravation; and 10 percent for cervical spine arthritis) per the schedule...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02179

    Original file (BC-2004-02179.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02179 INDEX CODE: 108.01, 110.02, 131.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 17 JAN 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt) with all back pay and allowances, and her 1989 discharge for pregnancy be changed to a medical discharge for multiple...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00573

    Original file (PD2009-00573.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    Bilateral Ankle and Foot Pain (including Scars) Conditions : The PEB found the CI unfit for: “Bilateral foot and ankle pain with history of bilateral surgically treated clubfeet, right calcaneonavicular coalition and resection of left calcaneonavicular coalition.” The PEB combined the Left ankle, Left foot, Right ankle, and Right foot as a single unfitting condition, coded as 5271 (VA Rating Code “5271 Ankle, limited motion of:”) and rated 10% (“Moderate”) with possible use of SECNAVINST or...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00287

    Original file (PD2011-00287.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    The PEB combined back pain, right knee pain and left knee pain as a single unfitting condition, coded analogously to 5003 and rated 0%. It was concluded, however, that the normal ROM documented by the MEB and the minimally impaired ROMs (without painful motion) documented on the post-separation VA C&P examination would not support application of that code; and, furthermore, would not justify a compensable rating if it were applied. In the matter of the back and left knee condition, the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200044

    Original file (0200044.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The current AFI that regulates separations for mental health problems does not allow coding for other than “Personality Disorder,” an entirely different DSM-IV code sequence from that with which the applicant was diagnosed. Based on the evidence provided, DPPRS recommends changing block 28 on his DD 214 from "Personality Disorder" to "Secretarial Authority" with a Separation Program designator of "JFF" (Exhibit E). ...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00674

    Original file (PD2013 00674.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    At a VA examination, dated 10 June 2010, the CI complained that “the left knee pain and swelling had gotten worse since the left knee arthroscopic surgery.” The VA physician noted tenderness only “along the medial and lateral patellar facets,” but noted the absence of effusion or instability. Left foot pain condition. Right knee pain condition .The Board considered whether the right knee pain condition was unfitting for continued military service.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | pd2009-00563

    Original file (pd2009-00563.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board does not have the authority under DoDI 6040.44 to render fitness or rating recommendations for any conditions not considered by the DES. Exhibit C. Department of Veterans' Affairs Treatment Record. I recommend coding and rating 8599-8520 at 40% as an accurate rating of the CI's left lower extremity disability.