RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01976 

COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her medical discharge be changed to a medical retirement. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She believes her disability was grossly underrated at the time of 
her discharge. She believes she was at least 30 percent disabled 
at the time of her discharge and; therefore, should have received 
a medical retirement. She has suffered for many years and has 
been unable to be gainfully employed since her discharge in 1993. 

 

In support of her appeal, the applicant submits a personal 
statement; a copy of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty; a copy of her Informal Physical 
Evaluation Board (IPEB) Findings and Recommendation 
Determination; and Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) 
documentation. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained 
in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air 
Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in 
this Record of Proceedings. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. DPSD states the IPEB reviewed the 
applicant’s case on 4 January 1993 and recommended she be 
discharged with severance pay with a disability rating of 20 
percent for diagnosis of hallus abductovalgus with bunion 
deformity metatarsophalangeal joint both feet, tailor bunion 
deformities fifth matatarspphalangeal joints both feet, 


contracted hammertoe deformities with heloma durum proximal 
interphalangeal joint fourth toe, left foot, and fifth toes, both 
feet with chronic foot pain, status both, three corrective 
surgical procedures in 1988, 1989 and 1990. Applicant concurred 
with the IPEB findings on 13 January 1993 and her separation date 
was established as 1 March 1993. She served 6 years, 1 month, 
and 19 days on active duty. 

 

DPSD indicates that the preponderance of evidence reflects that 
no error or injustice occurred during the disability process. 

 

The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The BCMR Medical 
Consultant states that due to the rigors of training the 
applicant reportedly began to experience bilateral foot pain 
during her fourth week of basic military training. Although the 
foot condition was determined to have existed prior to service, 
the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) determined the condition was 
permanently aggravated by military service. She had three 
surgeries; however, they did not achieve a durable relief of pain 
without restrictions. Consequently, due to the anticipated 
requirement for continued profile restrictions rendering her non-
worldwide qualified, she underwent evaluation through the 
Disability Evaluation System (DES). On 4 January 1993, the IPEB 
found the applicant unfit and assigned a disability rating of ten 
percent for each foot under the Veterans Administrative Schedule 
for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) analogous code 5299-5280; with an 
added 1.9 percent bilateral factor (ten percent of the combined 
rating), which, after rounding-off to the nearest ten, resulted 
in a combined disability rating of 20 percent. The applicant 
accepted the decision of the IPEB under her signature on the Air 
Force Form 1180, Physical Disability Evaluation Board Findings 
and Recommendation Disposition, dated 13 January 1993. 

 

After leaving military service, the applicant applied for and 
received a disability determination by the DVA for her bilateral 
foot condition; as well as other medical conditions that were 
service connected, but were not considered unfitting for military 
service. The applicant’s initial DVA rating determination, made 
on 1 December 1995, mirrored that of the Air Force. 
Subsequently, additional signs and symptoms reported by the 
applicant lead the DVA to increase her disability rating from 20 
percent to 50 percent under a different analogus code (5299-
5276), effective the date of her claim, 3 August 1998. Her 
disability rating was further increased to 100 percent based on 
individual unemployability, effective 22 December 2003, the date 
her additional claim was submitted. 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant indicates the DVA operates under a 
different set of laws (Title 38, United States Code), with a 
different purpose, the DVA is authorized to offer compensation 


for any medical condition determined service incurred or 
aggravated by military service. Moreover, the DVA is empowered 
to conduct periodic re-evaluations for adjusting the disability 
rating determination, as the impairment from a given medical 
condition that may vary over the lifetime of the veteran. It is 
clear the applicant’s condition, which required additional 
surgeries after she left military service, left her with 
additional symptoms, e.g., a “dysfunctional gait” and inability 
to hold substantially gainful employment; whereas previously, her 
gait was described as normal and she was able to “toe-and-heel 
walk” without difficulty. The disability rating determination 
made by both the Air Force and initially mirrored by the DVA, 
more likely than not, was reflective of the applicant’s level of 
impairment present at the time of separation. It is the BCMR 
Medical Consultant’s opinion that the applicant has not met the 
burden of proof of an error or injustice that warrants the 
desired change of the record. 

 

The complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation, 
with attachment, is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 

 

The applicant states the only surgery she had after her discharge 
was in the Veterans Hospital to attempt to correct residual 
damage from a surgery completed while she was on active duty. 
The vast majority of her scarring was present at the time of her 
discharge. She understands the difference in ratings based on 
Title 10 and Title 38; however, she feels her condition was not 
properly rated before her discharge. 

 

The applicant’s complete rebuttal, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit F. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an error or an injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
and the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as the 


basis for our conclusion 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. 

 

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 issues 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-01976 in Executive Session on 15 March 2011, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-01976: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dtd 24 May 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dtd 17 Aug 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dtd 28 Jan 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd 2 Feb 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dtd 22 Feb 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair