RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04033 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her reason for separation be changed to reflect a medical 
discharge. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She was unable to meet the fitness test running standards 
because of foot pain while training for the test. Nothing was 
done about her plantar fasciitis. She was told to get gel shoe 
liners which did not help. She finally received a diagnosis in 
January 2011. It was suggested she receive physical therapy; 
however, she was never given an appointment. 

 

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a copy of her 
rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs, DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, copies of 
her medical records and other supporting documentation. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 December 
2008. On 12 April 2011 she was notified of her commander’s 
intent to discharge her from the Air Force for unsatisfactory 
performance. Specifically, she failed to meet Air Force 
standards by receiving four unsatisfactory fitness test scores 
within 12 months. She consulted counsel and submitted matters 
on her behalf. On 29 April 2011, the discharge was approved. 
She was honorably separated on 16 May 2011 and credited with 
serving 2 years, 5 months and 8 days on active duty. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 


The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. Hindsight 
suggests the applicant may have received a questionable 
assessment and recommendation from her primary care manager by 
not electing to place her on a restricted running profile. The 
Medical Consultant opines the applicant’s provider otherwise 
recommended appropriate therapies and evaluations of plantar 
fasciitis, but a reasonable-minded provider might have also 
temporarily prohibited running activities via AF Form 422, Medical Profile, until the plantar fasciitis had shown clinical 
improvement. While the plantar fasciitis may have resulted from 
her increased training efforts to pass the fitness testing, the 
condition itself did not cause all of the fitness failures. 
Furthermore, in her response to the discharge action, she does 
not attribute the foot ailment to her fitness failure, but 
instead provides a discussion of her hopes to get training in 
communications or the computer field. 

 

The military Disability Evaluation System (DES) was established 
to maintain a fit and vital fighting force and can only offer 
compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries 
that renders members unfit for continued service and the cause 
for career termination, and then, only for the degree of 
impairment present at the time of separation and not based on 
future progression of disease or injury. Thus the mere presence 
of a medical diagnosis does not automatically qualify a member 
for disability evaluation and a medical discharge. 
Additionally, there must be evidence that the condition imposed 
certain duty restrictions or impacted worldwide qualification of 
a sufficient level and duration, generally at or exceeding 
12 months or when not expected to improve. The case file does 
not contain evidence to suggest the applicant’s medical 
condition caused an impediment to duty of a sufficient level or 
duration that would have justified a medical basis for 
discharge. 

 

The applicant has received disability compensation from the DVA 
for plantar fasciitis. It should be noted that the DVA operates 
under a different set of laws and is authorized to offer 
compensation for any medical condition with an established nexus 
with military service without regard to and independent of its 
proven or demonstrated impact upon a member’s fitness to serve 
or narrative release from service. Therefore, members may 
receive a compensation rating from the DVA for service-connected 
medical conditions that were not unfitting for service at the 
time of release from the military. 

 

Should the Board decide the applicant should have received a 
medical discharge based on a hypothetical competing opinion that 
she should have been exempted from the run portion of her 
fitness testing, it should be noted that this will not result in 
a retroactive net financial gain to the applicant since she 
would have only been eligible for discharge with severance pay 
for a medical condition that would have been rated at 10 percent 
if found unfit by the Physical Evaluation Board. In such a 


case, the applicant’s monthly DVA compensation would not have 
begun until after the sum of the severance pay disbursement was 
off-set by the total monetary equivalent of monthly DVA 
compensation. The applicant’s DVA payments began effective the 
day after her discharge date, which might mandate pay-back to 
the DVA if now issued severance pay. There is no evidence 
supplied to support an alternative option of directing the 
applicant’s return to duty or changing her reenlistment code to 
allow her to return to duty, not withstanding her desire for a 
totally different career field. 

 

A preponderance of the evidence reflects that the applicant’s 
commander acted properly in carrying out the spirit of the AFI 
36-2905 in the discharge action against the applicant. 

 

The complete BCMR Medical evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 2 November 2012, for review and comment within 
30 days (Exhibit D). 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 timely filed. 

 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We 
carefully considered the available evidence of record; however, 
we found no indication the actions taken to effect the 
applicant’s discharge were improper or contrary to the 
provisions of the governing instructions. Therefore we agree 
with the opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Medical 
Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion 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 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-2011-04033 in Executive Session on 18 December 2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

, Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Oct 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 1 Nov 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Nov 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair