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: 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.