RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-01402

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The AF Form 356, Findings and Recommendation Diposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, issued 23 Jan 15, be changed to reflect his Right Medial Plantar Neuropathy Trauma with Distal Superficial Perineal Neuropathy is found unfitting and moved from a Category II to a Category I-Unfitting Condition.   

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Medial Plantar Neuropathy stemmed directly from his right ankle surgery and is now a permanent condition that should be moved to a Category I-unfitting condition.  The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) agrees with him on this issue.  This issue was not addressed at his formal board hearing in Jan 15, because it was not diagnosed until the symptoms persisted past one year post-op. 

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 16 Oct 11.

In Sep 14, the applicant was found unfit by the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) for Right Ankle Pain Synovitis, with a recommendation of Discharge with Severance Pay (DWSP) with a combined compensable disability rating of 10 percent.  

On 8 Oct 14, Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB). The FPEB upheld the IPEB recommendation of DWSP of 10 percent.  

On 15 Dec 15 the SAFPC concurred with the prior to boards with a recommendation of Discharge With Severance Pay (DWSP) with a combined compensable disability rating of 10 percent.

On 1 Feb 16, the DVA issued their rating reconsideration of the applicant’s one-time reconsideration request.  The reconsideration rating showed no change to the unfitting condition previously rendered by the Air Force.  

On 28 Mar 16, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with four years, five months, and thirteen days of active service.   

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFDD recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The applicant contends his Right Medical Plantar Neuropathy Trauma with Distal Superficial Perineal Neuropathy is directly related to his unfitting Right Ankle Synovitis and should be found unfitting.  He was referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) for Physical Disability processing in Sep 14 for Right Ankle Pain.  He was found unfit by the IPEB for Right Ankle Synovitis, with a recommendation of DWSP with a combined compensable disability rating of 10 percent.  The applicant non-concurred and appealed to the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB).  The FPEB upheld the IPEB recommendation of DWSP of 10 percent; the applicant non-concurred with an appeal to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Counsel (SAFPC).  On 15 Dec 15 the SAFPC concurred with the prior to boards, and issued its recommendation of Discharge With Severance Pay (DWSP) with a combined compensable disability rating of 10 percent.  The applicant opted to use his one-time reconsideration with the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (DVA) and requested a reconsideration of his DVA rating.  The reconsideration rating dated 1 Feb 16 showed no change to the unfitting condition and member was separated effective 28 Mar 16. 

Under Title 10, USC, Physical Evaluation Boards must determine if a member’s condition(s) renders them unfit for continued military service relating to their office, grade, rank or rating.  The fact that a person may have other medical conditions does not mean that the condition(s) is/are necessarily unfitting for continued military service at the time of the medical board processing.  To be unfitting, the condition(s) must be such that it alone precludes the member from fulfilling their military duties.  Their review of the applicant’s records revealed that during the matter in question (PEBs, SAFPC appeal) the main complaint of the applicant’s was foot pain.  While he did complain of numbness of the foot after his last surgery in Oct 14, it was not obvious in the records submitted for review, and not emphasized in the Narrative Summary or by the Medical Board on the AF Form 618, Medical Board Report.  The DVA rating identified the numbness (present in both feet) could be attributed to the wearing of boots.  This doesn’t appear to be unfitting for duty, since it was bilateral and there was no contention that the left foot was unfitting for duty.  Records revealed the numbness of the foot did not prevent the applicant from playing Frisbee (although he did suffer pain after the activity), which was more demanding that the duties of his AFSC.  There is no indication that an error or injustice occurred at the time the PEB processed the applicant’s disability case. 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFDD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant refutes virtually every point made by the OPR and argues that his PEB was accomplished prematurely, not allowing him time to fully rehab from his Oct 14 surgery, which is directly responsible for his neuropathy in his foot/ankle, and he has been counseled by podiatry and neurology that his condition is permanent.  He contends that his medical condition fits the category of unfitting for duty because it prevents him from being able to stand for long periods of time, which is required as a nurse.  

He argues that there were errors in his doctor’s documentation regarding his condition and it is unfair that he be penalized for this error.  Also, he refutes the OPR’s statements about his “playing Frisbee.”  This was a mandatory squadron physical training activity, and he was instructed to attempt to play, which he could not, and he went to the clinic afterwards for pain and numbness.  

A complete copy of the applicant’s rebuttal is at Exhibit E.

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, to include his rebuttal; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  Additionally, the evidence presented by the applicant did not compel the Board to change the applicant’s medical condition Medial Plantar Neuropathy Trauma with Distal Superficial Perineal Neuropathy from a Category II to a Category I-Unfitting Condition.

Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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-2016-01402 in Executive Session on 25 Jul 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Apr 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPFDD, dated 19 Jul 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Dec 16.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Jan 17.  

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.