RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03004 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her assignment to the Retired Reserve Section and placement on 
the Air Force Reserve Retired List be set aside and she be given 
a medical retirement, with all benefits effective immediately. 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) only determined 
that she suffered from Metatarsalgia. They failed to properly 
evaluate neuropathy which stemmed from lower back problems she 
suffered since 1979 when she was active duty in the Army. 

 

The Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) gave her a 80 percent 
service connected disability rating. 

 

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

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant was placed on the Air Force Reserve Retired List 
effective 28 Apr 2012, eligible for retired pay at age 60, in 
the grade of technical sergeant (E-6). 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of 
the Air Force at Exhibit C. Accordingly, there is no need to 
recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings. 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical 
Consultant opines that the applicant has not met the burden of 
proof of error or injustice that warrants the desired change of 
the record. After reviewing her medical records the Medical 
Consultant notes numerous temporary profiles and duty 
limitations throughout the years for various issues. The one 
constant factor appears to be her Metatarsalgia. The applicant 
was able to perform the duties of her office, grade, rank or 


rating through-out the years in the services (Army, Air Force, 
and Navy). However, through natural progression, the 
Metatarsalgia ultimately progressed to a painful condition 
requiring surgery. 

 

The applicant received a Fitness only evaluation from the IPEB; 
however, she declined a Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB), 
where she could have appealed for a possible compensable 
disability within the military Disability Evaluation System 
(DES). 

 

Addressing her desire for a medical retirement, the military 
DES, established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can 
by law, under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), only offer 
compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries 
which specifically rendered a member unfit for continued active 
service and were the cause for career termination; and then only 
for the degree of impairment present at the time of separation 
and not based on future occurrences. The Medical Consultant 
opines even if she had presented to the FPEB she would not have 
meet the rating threshold for a medical retirement. 

 

On 24 Feb 2012, the DVA performed a comprehensive disability 
evaluation and she was awarded a disability rating of 
80 percent. However, it should be noted the DVA gave her a 
10 percent disability rating for Bilateral Pes Planus, Veterans 
Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) Code 5276, 
which is comparable to VASRD code 5279 Metatarsalgia given by 
the IPEB. 

 

In the case under review, the IPEB found the applicant unfit to 
perform the duties of her office grade, rank or rating only for 
the diagnosis of Metatarsalgia, VASRD Code 5279. Based upon the 
supplied Service medical evidence, the Medical Consultant found 
no other medical conditions that established, or should have, a 
cause and effect relationship with the termination of her 
service or as an additional reason for her release from military 
service. Although she was evaluated and treated for a number of 
other episodic illnesses or injuries during her military service 
none were shown to have interfered with her military service to 
the extent or duration that warranted a separate basis for 
medical disqualification or for consideration of placement on 
Medical Hold for a Medical Evaluation Board and further 
processing through the military DES under AFI 36-3212, Physical 
Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, and Separation. 

 

Operating under a different set of laws (Title 38, U.S.C.}, with 
a different purpose, the DVA is authorized to offer compensation 
for any medical condition with an established nexus with 
military service, without regard to [and independent of] its 
demonstrated or proven impact upon a service member's 
retainability, fitness to serve, or the narrative reason for 
release from military service. With this in mind, Title 38, 
U.S.C., which governs the DVA compensation system, was written 
to allow awarding compensation ratings for conditions that were 
not proven unfitting for military service at the time of 


separation. This is the reason why an individual can be found 
fit for release from military service for one reason and yet 
sometime thereafter receive a compensation rating from the DVA 
for service-connected, but militarily non-unfitting medical 
conditions. 

 

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s 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 26 Mar 2013 for review and comment within 30 days. 
As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit 
D). 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by 
existing law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 

 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of 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 BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the 
basis for our conclusion 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 this application 
in Executive Session on 30 Apr 2013, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-03004: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Jul 2012, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 18 Mar 

 2013. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 26 Mar 2013.