ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
IN THE CASE OF:   BOARD DATE: 23 November 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210006941 
APPLICANT REQUESTS: . of a formal Line of Duty (LOD) determination . a personal appearance before the Board APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
. DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) . Orders 206-302, dated 24 July 2016 . DA Form 1059 (Service school Academic Evaluation) . email thread – LOD Initiated dated 18 November 2016 . Kaiser Permanente Work Status Report . follow-up email thread for LOD dated 5 February 2017 . two DA Forms 2823 (Sworn Statement) 
FACTS: 
1. 
The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code, section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 

2. 
On 18 November 2016 she submitted the necessary documents for her LOD to the appropriate personnel. She requested the status on multiple occasions; however, she deployed in fall 2017 and upon her return noticed it still had not been completed. She made numerous inquiries and was informed they could not locate it. She was told to complete a sworn affidavit, which she did, and was subsequently informed it was out of the allotted time.  Her emails are evidence it met the timeline. 

3. 
The applicant provides: 


a. The below listed documents to be referenced in the service record: 
. Orders 206-302 dated 24 July 2016 . DA Form 1059 
b. 
An email thread, dated 18 November 2016, wherein the applicant informed the recipient she should have an LOD initiated for an injury she sustained on 24 August 2016 while at the Captains Career Course. Attached she provided the Kaiser Pemanente Work Status Report.  

c. 
A Kaiser Permanente Work Status Report, dated 27 August 2016, indicated the applicant was diagnosed with right plantar fasciitis and was placed on modified activity for work and home from 27 August 2016 through 2 September 2016.  She was reevaluated on several times in September and October 2017 and her modified activity was extended through 11 April 2017. 

d. 
A follow-up email thread, wherein the applicant requested a status on her LOD on 3 January 2017 and again on 5 February 2017. 


e. Two DA Forms 2823: 
(1) 
A sworn statement by the applicant, dated 17 April 2019, indicated while she attended the Captains Career Course from 14 August 2016 to 26 August 2016 she suffered a horrible, sharp pain that radiated through the heel of her right foot upon completing the 2 mile run of the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT).  She hobbled across the finish line and off the track.  She elevated her foot, iced her foot, and following her return home she noticed it had not improved and on 27 August 2016 she went to see her doctor. Her doctor informed her she suffered from plantar fasciitis and she was placed on modified activity from 27 August 2016 to 2 September 2016. Her follow-up appointment on 27 September 2016 showed her right heel had not recovered and she was placed on an extended modified activity profile until 12 October 2016. 

(2) 
A sworn statement from a fellow classmate at the Captains Career Course, TKR-M, confirmed she watched the applicant in pain and limping following the APFT. 


4. A review of the applicant’s service record shows: 
a. Having had prior enlisted service in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), she was appointed as a California Army National Guard (CAARNG) commissioned officer and executed an oath of office on 30 March 2011. 
b. Two DA Forms 2173, both signed and dated 4 April 2004, show: 
(1) 
On 29 January 2012, the applicant was examined at Moncrief Army Community Hospital due to injuries she developed while in training at Fort Jackson, SC.  The nature and extent of her injuries included lower back pain, joint pain localized in the 

knee, and pain in the leg below the knee. A formal line of duty investigation was not required and the injury was considered to have been incurred in the line of duty. 

(2) 
On 14 February 2013, the applicant was examined at Moncrief Army Community Hospital due to injuries she developed during active duty training after she fell from the bar on the confidence course at Ft. Jackson, SC. The nature and extent of her injuries included multiple muscle strains. A formal line of duty investigation was not required and the injury was considered to have been incurred in the line of duty. 

c. 
Orders 206-302, dated 24 July 2016, ordered the applicant to active duty for training to attend the Captains Career Course from 14 August 2016 to 26 August 2016. 

d. 
A DA Form 1059, dated 25 August 2016, shows the applicant achieved course standards and successfully completed the Chaplain Captains Career Course on 26 August 2016.  It also shows she passed the APFT on 24 August 2016. 

e. 
Her service record contained a DA Form 705 (APFT Scorecard) which shows she passed the record APFT on 22 October 2016. She completed an alternate aerobic event, the bike, in place of the 2 mile run. 

f. 
Orders 05-215-0108, dated 3 August 2017, ordered the applicant to active duty in support of Operation Enduing Freedom (OEF) (Spartan Shield) with a report date of 21 September 2017. 

g. 
A DA Form 2173, dated 24 January 2018, shows the applicant was treated on 16 December 2017 while deployed to Camp As Sayliyah, Qatar after she rolled/twisted her ankle during physical training while playing ultimate frisbee and she sustained an open dislocation of her left ankle. She was transported to Hamad Hospital and then transferred to Al Ahli Hospital for treatment. A formal line of duty investigation was not required and the injury was considered to have been incurred in the line of duty. 


h. On 14 February 2018, the Chief, Personnel Division of the National Guard Bureau (NGB) confirmed U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) delegated the authority to the NGB to act as the final approving authority for LODs. The applicant’s DA Form 2173 for left ankle dislocation, which occurred during OEF, was approved “In Line of Duty.” 
i. A DA Form 199 (Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings), showed 
the applicant’s conditions were evaluated by a PEB on 9 August 2019. The PEB found 
the applicant unfit, recommended a rating of 40 percent, and her disposition be 
permanent disability retirement. The applicant’s two unfitting conditions were left ankle 
reflex sympathetic dystrophy with tendinitis, status post subtalar open (VASRD Code 5271-5284) with a rating of 20 percent and lumbosacral strain (VASRD Code 5237) with a rating of 20 percent.  The applicant concurred with the findings and waived a formal hearing; however, she requested the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reconsider her disability ratings on 3 September 2019. The disability disposition was not based on disease or injury incurred in the line of duty in combat with an enemy of the United States and did not result from a combat-related injury.  Section IV (Medical Conditions Determined Not to be Unfitting) of the DA Form 199 listed the following medical conditions: 
. left lower extremity radiculopathy . right lower extremity radiculopathy . left trochanteric pain syndrome including trochanteric bursitis . right trochanteric pain syndrome including trochanteric bursitis . limitation of range of motion left hip . limitation of range of motion right hip . left knee tendinitis/tendinosis . right knee tendinitis/tendinosis 
j. Orders 304-0037, dated 31 October 2019, released the applicant from assignment and duty because of physical disability that permit her retirement for permanent physical disability with an effective date of 10 December 2019. An amendment to the orders were published, Orders 309-0014, dated 5 November 2019, changing the effective date to 11 December 2019. 
j. She was honorably retired from active duty on 11 December 2019. Her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release of Discharge from Active Duty)  shows she completed 2 years and 21 days of active service with 7 years, 1 month, and 20 days of prior inactive service. She was assigned separation code SEJ and the narrative reason for separation listed as “Disability, Permanent, Enhanced.” 
k. Orders 0000391839.00, dated 13 May 2020, honorably retired the applicant from the CAARNG and placed her on the Permanent Disability Retired List (PDRL) with an effective date of 11 December 2019. 
l. A DA Form 199-2 (U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) Revised PEB Proceedings), showed the applicant’s conditions were reevaluated by the USAPDA on 1 June 2020. The USAPDA administratively corrected the findings of the Informal PEB completed on 9 August 2019; however, the administrative correction did not change her disposition, reduce the disability rating assigned to an unfitting condition, take away a favorable administrative determination in Section VI, change or delete a diagnosis rendered by the MEB, and/or remove a diagnosis listed under another unfitting condition. The applicant’s disability rating for left ankle reflex sympathetic dystrophy with tendinitis, status post subtalar open (VASRD Code 5271-5284) was increased from 20 percent to 30 percent; however, her combined disability rating remained the same at 40 percent. The case was adjudicated as part of the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) and there were no other documented changes. 
5. On 21 April 2021, the HRC Chief, Casualty and Mortuary Affairs Operations Division rendered an advisory opinion in the processing of this case.  He opined: 
a. 
After reviewing all provided documentation and medical records from the electronic medical record system used by medical providers of the U.S. Department of Defense (Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA)) and the Veterans Affairs (VA) Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV), it was determined the applicant’s right foot plantar fasciitis should have been considered “In Line of Duty-This Episode Only.”  

b. 
According to temporary profiles, the applicant was placed on modified activity until 12 October 2016 and that temporary profile was extended to 16 January 2017. On her Periodic Health Assessment dated 22 July 2017, the applicant reported that her plantar fasciitis had resolved and the provider cleared her to deploy. During the deployment in 2017, there are no notes in AHLTA documenting she was seen for episodes of plantar fasciitis. There were also no notes in JLV documenting her being seen through the VA for plantar fasciitis from 2017-2021. After the resolution of the applicant’s foot pain in late 2016, it does not appear she had any long-term issues related to plantar fasciitis. 


6. 
On 27 April 2021, the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for acknowledgment and/or response.  On 4 May 2021, the applicant provided the following in her rebuttal: 

. rebuttal statement . Standard Form (SF) 513, dated 16 November 2016 . Care Management Form, dated 22 March 2019 

7. 
The applicant stated in her rebuttal: 


a. 
She has continued to have issues with the plantar fasciitis of her right foot. On 16 December 2017, she suffered an open dislocation and rupture of ligaments of her left foot while deployed. This required immediate surgery, she was non-weight bearing for several months, and in physical therapy for approximately 16 months. The injury escalated the plantar fasciitis of her right foot because her body automatically adjusted her weight to the right side to compensate for the weakness and pain of her left. She complained of the pain on her right side and of the constant flare-up of the plantar fasciitis of her right foot and was told by the doctors and therapist that it was to be expected due the traumatic injury of her left ankle. 

b. 
Since 2018, the plantar fasciitis has worsened. She cannot stand or walk for long periods of time. She has inserts and heel lifts for her shoes to help with the condition. She provided two documents that she was able to retrieve regarding her plantar fasciitis. All provided documents are available for review by the Board. 


8. 
By regulation (AR 15-185), an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the ABCMR.  Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the ABCMR or by the Director of the ABCMR. 

9. 
By regulation (AR 600-8-4), the worsening of a pre-existing medical condition over and above the natural progression of the condition as a direct result of military duty is considered an aggravated condition.  Commanders must initiate and complete LOD investigations, despite a presumption of Not In the Line of Duty, which can only be determined with a formal LOD investigation. 

10. 
MEDICAL REVIEW: 


The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor was asked to review this 
case. Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s ABCMR application and 
accompanying documentation, the military electronic medical record (AHLTA), the VA electronic medical record (JLV), the electronic Physical Evaluation Board (ePEB), the Medical Electronic Data Care History and Readiness Tracking (MEDCHART) application, the Army Aeromedical Resource Office (AERO), and the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS).  The ARBA Medical Advisor made the following findings and recommendations: 
a. The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting an affirmative line of duty determination (LODD) for a right foot condition.  She states: 
“LOD for Right Foot Plantar Fasciitis sustained while at the US Anny Chaplain Center & School in FT Jackson South Carolina (period: 14-26 August 2016).” 
b. The Record of Proceedings details the applicant’s military service and the circumstances of the case. 
c. The applicant’s Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings (DA 199) shows that on 9 August 2019 the applicant was found unfit for “Left ankle reflex sympathetic dystrophy with tendonitis…” and Lumbosacral strain.”  They determined she was fit for the remaining eight medical conditions, none of which involved her feet. 
d. The PEB applied the VA derived ratings of 30% and 20% respectively and recommended the applicant be permanently retired for physical disability with a total rating of 40% (30% combined with 20% = 44% which rounds to 40%).  After being counseled by her PEBLO, the applicant concurred with PEB’s recommendation on 3 September 2019.  Orders show she was placed on the retirement list on 12 December 2019. In light of these facts, an affirmative LODD will have no bearing on her retirement. 
e. 
The applicant attended the Chaplain Captains Career Course at the US Army Chaplain Center & School on Ft Jackson from 15 August 2016 thru 26 August 2016. She states she injured her right foot during the 2 mile run event of an Army Physical Fitness test (APFT) on 24 August 2016. There are no AHLTA encounters from this period of Service. 

f. 
Civilian medical documentation shows the applicant was diagnosed with and treated for right foot plantar fasciitis from 27 August 2016 thru 11 April 2017. 


g. On her 22 July 2017 periodic health assessment (PHA), she reported she had been treated for plantar fasciitis and subsequently cleared for duty.  She answered no to “joint pain”, “chronic pain”, “other.” 
h. Among other things, an affirmative LODD provides care and/or payment for care of service incurred injuries.  Because the applicant was diagnosed with plantar fasciitis the day after she graduated from her captains’ career course, it is reasonable to assume this injury was incurred during the course. As she did not have an affirmative LODD at the time and the care was provided by a civilian, she may have incurred costs associated the care for this injury. 
i. The ARBA medical advisor concurs with the recommendation of the United States Army Human Resources Command that her “right foot plantar fasciitis should be considered In Line of Duty-This Episode Only.” 
BOARD DISCUSSION: 
1. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was partially warranted. Board members did not see a need for a personal appearance. The Board agreed with the HRC's determination that an affirmative line of duty determination provides care and/or payment for care of service incurred injuries. Because the applicant was diagnosed with plantar fasciitis the day after she graduated 
from her captains’ career course, it is reasonable to assume this injury was incurred 
during the course. As she did not have an affirmative line of duty determination at the time and the care was provided by a civilian, she may have incurred costs associated the care for this injury. The Board concurs that her “right foot plantar fasciitis should be considered In Line of Duty-This Episode Only.” 
BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF 
XX: XX: XX: GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION 
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 
1. 
The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing the applicant's right foot plantar fasciitis (August 2016 - January 2017) is considered In Line of Duty-This Episode Only.” 

2. 
The applicant's request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. In this case, the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. 


X 
CHAIRPERSON 
E 
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. 
REFERENCES: 
1. 
Title 10, United States 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 Army Board for 

Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 

2. 
Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct. 


a. 
The ABCMR is not an investigative body and decides cases based on the evidence that is presented in the military records provided and the independent evidence submitted with the application. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. 

b. 
The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional evidence or opinions. Additionally, it states in paragraph 2-11 that applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR.  The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. 


3. Army Regulation 600-8-4 (Line of Duty Policy, Procedures, and Investigations) prescribes policies and procedures for investigating the circumstances of disease, injury, or death of a Soldier providing standards and considerations used in determining LOD status. 
a. 
A formal LOD investigation is a detailed investigation that normally begins with DA Form 2173 (Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status) completed by the medical treatment facility and annotated by the unit commander as requiring a formal LOD investigation. The appointing authority, on receipt of the DA Form 2173, appoints an investigating officer who completes the DD Form 261 (Report of Investigation Line of Duty and Misconduct Status) appends appropriate statements and other documentation to support the determination, which is submitted to the General Court Martial Convening Authority for approval. 

b. 
The worsening of a pre-existing medical condition over and above the natural progression of the condition as a direct result of military duty is considered an aggravated condition. Commanders must initiate and complete LOD investigations, despite a presumption of Not In the Line of Duty, which can only be determined with a formal LOD investigation. 

c. 
An injury, disease, or death is presumed to be in LOD unless refuted by substantial evidence contained in the investigation. LOD determinations must be supported by substantial evidence and by a greater weight of evidence than supports any different conclusion. The evidence contained in the investigation must establish a 


degree of certainty so that a reasonable person is convinced of the truth or falseness of a fact. 
//NOTHING FOLLOWS//