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 applicants 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 applicants
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 applicants 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
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02024
On 15 Feb 02, IPEB reviewed the applicants case and recommended discharge under other than Chapter 61, 10 USC, noting the applicants medical condition existed prior to service (EPTS) and had not been permanently aggravated by military service. The applicant contends her medical conditions were incurred while on active duty and should be considered in line of duty based on the service connection decision by the DVA. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04321
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-2004-02530
On 14 February 2001, Officials within the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force determined the applicant was physically unfit for continued military service due to a physical disability which existed prior to military service (EPTS) and directed the applicant be discharged without disability benefits. The BCMR Medical Consultant states the applicant was discharged for recurrent major depression that existed prior to service. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03078
The commander in this case clearly considered all of the information the applicant provided. The Consultant provides details and analysis of the applicant’s military and DVA medical records and finds no evidence to support a diagnosis of Behcet’s disease either in service or following discharge. This is why a military member can receive a disability rating from the DVA without being rated by the Air Force, or receive a higher rating from the DVA than the one awarded by the Air Force.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00978
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00978 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation of Disability, Existed Prior to Service (EPTS), Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) be changed to a service connected disability. The IPEB found the applicant unfit and recommended discharge noting the applicants medical condition, EPTS and had not been permanently aggravated...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01752
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Over several months she noted improvement with Zoloft, which when discontinued in December1998, she again became depressedand it was reintroduced.In June 1999, she became overwhelmed by a move to a new duty station and...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02488
The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. 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 offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00627
Mental Health referred the applicant to a medical evaluation board (MEB). Further, it must be noted that the service disability boards must rate disabilities based on the individual's condition at the time of evaluation. We further find the applicants medical condition was thoroughly reviewed in accordance with the applicable instructions and policy and appropriately determined to have existed prior to her service (EPTS) and therefore not compensable.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01720
The complete HQ AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 6 Aug 10 for review and comment within 30 days (E). 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 offices of primary responsibility and adopt...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01236
On 26 July 2001, the SAFPC determined the applicant was physically unfit for continued military service due to a physical disability which existed prior to service and directed she be separated without disability benefits. The disability processing records indicate the applicant was treated fairly throughout her DES process and was properly rated under disability laws and policy at the time of her medical discharge. The applicant’s case was processed through the medical...