RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-04320

  						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Line of Duty (LOD) reflect that his medical condition was sustained/aggravated while in military status and be reported as “service aggravated.”  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He previously had a LOD and Medical Continuation (MEDCON) orders for his right knee that required surgery.  During his recovery, he aggravated his left knee (over compensating) that required a total knee replacement.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 13 Jan 87.

On 14 May 87, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with four months and two days of active service after completion of initial active duty training.  He then affiliated with the Air Force Reserve.

According to the applicant’s DD Forms 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, he was called to active duty to serve in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM from 15 Jun 09 to 29 Dec 09 and again from 9 Apr 10 to 23 Mar 11.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/SGO recommends no change to the applicant’s LOD determination.  The applicant incurred a right knee injury (medial meniscus tear) on 31 Jul 09 while on active duty resulting in a LOD which was found In the Line of Duty (ILOD) on 14 Oct 10.  He had right knee surgery on 2 Sep 10 and was converted to MEDCON orders from 16 Sep 10 to 11 Mar 11 for recovery.  During his time on MEDCON orders the applicant filed a LOD claim for his left knee secondary to overcompensation while recovering from the right knee surgery.  A LOD was initiated as required and the wing recommended Existed Prior to Service-Service Aggravated (EPTS-SA).  However, upon review by the reviewing (AFRC LOD Board) and approving (AFRC/CV) authorities mandated by AFI 36-2910, Line of Duty (Misconduct) Determinations, the finding was overturned to Existed Prior to Service-Line of Duty Not Applicable (EPTS-LOD NA) and finalized on 22 Nov 11.  He then requested a reinvestigation of this LOD in accordance with the AFI and again the LOD was submitted to the AFRC LOD Board with a recommendation from the wing of EPTS-SA.  This was overturned and closed as EPTS-LOD NA.  Upon notification by his civilian provider that he required left knee surgery, the applicant reengaged his medical unit for a third LOD (initiated on 31 Jul 14) for “bilateral arthrosis of the knees.”  This time, the wing recommended EPTS-LOD NA and the final approving authority concurred with this finding and concluded the case on 1 Dec 14.  

During all three LOD reviews the basis for the EPTS–LOD NA findings was the fact that the applicant clearly had the chronic left knee condition prior to the period of service during which it manifested and this fact is well documented.  Supporting medical records indicate nothing other than natural progression of a pre-existing condition.  Service aggravation requires a permanent worsening of a condition secondary to military service.  Additionally, since the right knee had already undergone a total knee replacement covered by a LOD, submission of a LOD for bilateral arthrosis of the knees was an inaccurate diagnosis.  Arthrosis requires bone on bone not bone on metal or metal on metal.  This appeared to be an attempt to justify the left total knee replacement which occurred after the fact.  The left knee chronic condition therefore remained EPTS - LOD N/A as there was no evidence of service aggravation.

In summary, the applicant did incur a right knee in the Line of Duty (ILOD) that resulted in surgical repair and placement on MEDCON orders for his recovery.  However, the applicant was afforded thorough due process via three separate LODs.  Based on his medical records and basic medical principles, his condition existed prior to the period of service during which the symptoms manifested.  There is no evidence to support this is anything more that natural progression of a pre-existing condition.

A complete copy of the AFRC/SGO 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 Nov 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

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 applicant’s 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 and he was afforded thorough due process via three separate LODs.  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-2015-04320 in Executive Session on 9 Feb 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Sep 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFRC/SGO, dated 11 Oct 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Nov 16.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.