IN THE CASE OF 

		BOARD DATE:  5 January 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110011960 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests correction of his military medical records to remove the entry on his pre-induction medical examination that shows he has flat feet (pes planus).
 
2.  The applicant states he never had flat feet and his current doctor confirms that.  It would not be possible for him to have had flat feet when he was on active duty, grow new arches, and no longer have flat feet.  

3.  The applicant provides copies of:

* a letter from the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)
* a letter from the Army Review Boards Agency
* a letter from a medical doctor
* his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge
* page 15 of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Statement 
* a VA letter 
* his service medical records

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 19 October 1965.  He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 64A (Light Vehicle Driver).

3.  His service medical records contain the following documents: 

	a.  His Pre-Induction Standard Form (SF) 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 12 April 1965, that shows in item 74 (Summary of Defects and Diagnosis) "item 36 Pes Planus, gIII, L-2."  However, item 77 (Examinee) is annotated "is Qualified for INDUCTION."  

	b.  His Induction SF 88, dated 19 October 1965, does not list any comments or diagnosis related to flat feet.

	c.  His Separation SF 88, dated 22 August 1967, does not list any medical issues and shows in item 77 that he was qualified for separation.

4.   The applicant was released from active duty on 28 September 1967, as a private first class/E-3.  He completed 1 year, 11 months, and 10 days of total active service.

5.  The applicant provides:

	a.  a 26 April 2010 letter from a medical doctor stating the applicant had a foot exam that day and he had modest arches on both feet.  There was a mild pronation (foot was rotated inward) to the right ankle and a right bunion; but no evidence of flat feet (pes planus).

	b.  page 15 of VA Statement which provides:

		(1)  Decision:  "Service connection for bilateral pes planus with plantar fasciitis, with hallux valgus right foot and degenerative joint disease first metatarsophalangeal left foot (claimed as bilateral foot condition) remains denied."

		(2)  Reasons and Bases:  "Service treatment records indicate that bilateral pes planus, grade III, was noted during your enlistment exam of April 1965.  You were treated for bilateral cancaneous (heel) fractures in December 1965; however, you had no complaints associated with your feet during your separation examination of August 1967."

		(3)  The VA suggested that the applicant might want to apply to this Board to change his military record.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends the medical diagnosis of flat feet on his pre-induction examination is incorrect.  He states he did not have flat feet and it would be impossible for him to have flat feet, grow new arches, and no longer have flat feet.

2.  His Pre-Induction SF 88, dated 12 April 1965, shows the examining doctor diagnosed the applicant to have pes planus (flat feet).  There is no evidence showing there was an error or injustice in this determination.

3.  The applicant has provided a letter, dated 26 April 2010, from a medical doctor, stating the applicant was examined and he has modest arches on both feet; there was no evidence of flat feet.

4.  Unfortunately, there is no documentary evidence of record, and the applicant has not provided any documents, that convincingly corroborate his contentions that his diagnosis of flat feet was inaccurate or unjust.  His current doctor has noticed that he has modest arches on both feet.  It is not unreasonable to believe that another doctor would look at his feet and determine he had flat feet.

5.  The Army has an interest in promoting the reliability of its medical records.  Alteration of a diagnosis in those records after the fact may lead to fundamental questions about the veracity of the records.  For these reasons, a diagnosis in the applicant's medical records should not be altered.  The Secretary's interest is in ensuring an orderly system in which a physician makes certain observations and records them faithfully in the medical records at the time.  It would take an extraordinary showing to alter such a diagnosis.  In this case, a competent physician made a diagnosis of flat feet in good faith.  That observation was duly recorded on the applicant's SF 88 and is a part of his medical records.  He has not presented a sufficient reason to alter that observation.

6.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant's request should be denied.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____X___  ____X___  ____X___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.



      _______ _  _X_______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100029737



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110011960



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1