RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05414
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Block 19 of her AF IMT 348, Line of Duty (LOD) Determination, signed/dated by the appointing authority on 4 Nov 11, be corrected to show In Line of Duty instead of Existing Prior to Service (EPTS)-Service Aggravated.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
While deployed on Active Duty (AD) orders, during the period 1 Jan 11 to 17 May 11, she injured her right knee and hip while running in a 10K morale race with her deployed chain of command, subordinates, and staff members. She had never sustained any previous injuries to her right knee that warrant her LOD being annotated EPTSService Aggravated.
She has taken several Physical Fitness tests prior to/after the injury and all have been rated an excellent score. In addition, she has been running competitively since 1982 and never had any running injury or any injury to her right knee.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant served as a member of the Air National Guard (ANG) during the matter under review.
On 1 Jan 11, the applicant was ordered to active duty to participate in Operation Coronet Oak.
On 19 Apr 11, an LOD Determination was initiated to determine if the applicants right knee pain was related to her military service. According to the details reflected on the AF IMT 348, the applicant injured her knee while running a 10K race on 27 Feb 11 when she had to make a sudden stop because of another runner. She subsequently presented to sick call and was eventually subjected to an MRI, which eventually resulted in a diagnosis of right mild chondromalacia patella, small bakers cyst.
On 17 May 11, the applicant was released from active duty and reverted to her traditional (part-time) status as a member of the ANG.
On 19 Oct 11, the LOD determination was found to be legally sufficient and the investigating officer recommended a finding of EPTS-Service Aggravated.
On 4 Nov 11, the appointing authority concurred with said recommendation and determined the applicants EPTS medical condition was aggravated by her military service.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/SBPA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant injured herself while running while she was on active duty. Her medical documentation stated that she had chondromalcia patella, which is a chronic condition which she aggravated while on orders. The determination is consistent with an EPTS-Service Aggravation determination and does not change entitlements or benefits for the applicant. The determination of EPTS-Service Aggravated is still considered an In Line of Duty determination and the applicant is eligible for entitlements [i.e. medical care and/or incapacitation benefits should the condition render her unfit for duty] for conditions found either In Line of Duty or EPTS-Service Aggravated.
A complete copy of the NGB/SGPA 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 Jun 14 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).
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 took notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. While the applicant refutes the determination of EPTS-Service Aggravated, wanting the medical determination associated with this specific incident to be In Line of Duty, it should be noted that the refuted determination is considered an In Line of Duty determination, making the applicant eligible for entitlements for conditions found in either determination. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.
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-2013-05414 in Executive Session on 2 Sep 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-05414 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Nov 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/SGPA, dated 31 Mar 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Jun 14.
3
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00805
However, the MEDCON orders were not completed. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/SGPF recommends denial. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03992
In this respect, we note the applicant was on active duty orders in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM and was diagnosed with a medical injury. While the applicant requests continuation of his active duty orders for the period 18 Jun 11 to 9 Sep 11, we concur with the recommendation of AFMOA/SGHI to correct the record to reflect the applicant was retained on active duty orders for the period 19 Jun 11 to 27 Jul 11. ________________________________________________________________ THE...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00920
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00920 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She receives Incapacitation (INCAP) Pay, for the period 9 February 2012 through 28 October 2012. In support of her request, the applicant submits copies of her letter of request for INCAP pay dated 31 Aug 12, with application for INCAP pay with final...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03167
He receive all back pay and allowances from 15 April 2000, the date he was released from active duty, until now. He requests a medical retirement from the Air National Guard (ANG). After more physical therapy he was sent back to the ANG for duty to see if he experienced any more problems.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02652
On 21 February 1992, the LOD determination was approved. The complete A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded stating his injuries occurred during Desert Storm while delivering bullets and minesweepers in and out of the combat zone. He provided letters from eyewitnesses who were with him when he first injured his back and re-injured his left knee.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008449
On 9 May 2013, the approving authority reviewed the case and stated that in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-4 (LOD Policy, Procedures, and Investigations), chapter 2-6, paragraph 6(c), "Line of Duty Determinations must be supported by substantial evidence and by a greater weight of evidence than supports any different conclusion. Paragraph 4-8(e) states information from the medical records will be used to support a determination that an EPTS condition was or was not aggravated by...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01410
Upon returning from his AD deployment in 2012 he was denied Medical Continuation (MEDCON) orders and pay by his medical group, and he should have been considered for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). On 12 Dec 12, the Connecticut IG rendered a determination that the applicants contested injury was incurred while serving on AD, and, as he was found fit for duty, no MEDCON orders were warranted. A complete copy of the NGB/A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03047
The LOD was received by NGB/SG after the applicant was separated from the military. The complete SGPA evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends a finding of Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), in line of duty, that her PTSD was unfitting for continued military service, and that she be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) with a compensable disability rating of 50 percent, under VASRD Code 9411, effective 29 Mar 13. The complete BCMR Medical...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04612
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04612 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be entitled to medical continuation on extended active duty (EAD) from 1 October 2009 through 19 November 2010. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PS recommends approval, stating,...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00636
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00636 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated to the Air Force Reserve and placed on active duty for medical hold for referral to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). His physicians submission of two approved line of duty (LOD) determinations was evidence that he had two...