RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05414 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Block 19 of her AF IMT 348, Line of Duty (LOD) Determination, signed/dated by the appointing authority on 4 Nov 11, be corrected to show “In Line of Duty” instead of “Existing Prior to Service (EPTS)-Service Aggravated.” APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: While deployed on Active Duty (AD) orders, during the period 1 Jan 11 to 17 May 11, she injured her right knee and hip while running in a 10K morale race with her deployed chain of command, subordinates, and staff members. She had never sustained any previous injuries to her right knee that warrant her LOD being annotated EPTS–Service Aggravated. She has taken several Physical Fitness tests prior to/after the injury and all have been rated an excellent score. In addition, she has been running competitively since 1982 and never had any running injury or any injury to her right knee. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant served as a member of the Air National Guard (ANG) during the matter under review. On 1 Jan 11, the applicant was ordered to active duty to participate in Operation Coronet Oak. On 19 Apr 11, an LOD Determination was initiated to determine if the applicant’s right knee pain was related to her military service. According to the details reflected on the AF IMT 348, the applicant injured her knee while running a 10K race on 27 Feb 11 when she had to make a sudden stop because of another runner. She subsequently presented to sick call and was eventually subjected to an MRI, which eventually resulted in a diagnosis of right mild chondromalacia patella, small baker’s cyst. On 17 May 11, the applicant was released from active duty and reverted to her traditional (part-time) status as a member of the ANG. On 19 Oct 11, the LOD determination was found to be legally sufficient and the investigating officer recommended a finding of “EPTS-Service Aggravated.” On 4 Nov 11, the appointing authority concurred with said recommendation and determined the applicant’s EPTS medical condition was aggravated by her military service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/SBPA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant injured herself while running while she was on active duty. Her medical documentation stated that she had chondromalcia patella, which is a chronic condition which she aggravated while on orders. The determination is consistent with an “EPTS-Service Aggravation” determination and does not change entitlements or benefits for the applicant. The determination of EPTS-Service Aggravated is still considered an “In Line of Duty” determination and the applicant is eligible for entitlements [i.e. medical care and/or incapacitation benefits should the condition render her unfit for duty] for conditions found either “In Line of Duty” or “EPTS-Service Aggravated.” A complete copy of the NGB/SGPA 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 Jun 14 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). 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. While the applicant refutes the determination of “EPTS-Service Aggravated,” wanting the medical determination associated with this specific incident to be “In Line of Duty,” it should be noted that the refuted determination is considered an “In Line of Duty” determination, making the applicant eligible for entitlements for conditions found in either determination. 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-2013-05414 in Executive Session on 2 Sep 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-05414 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Nov 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Letter, NGB/SGPA, dated 31 Mar 14. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Jun 14.