MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           7 October 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026684

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That her date of rank be adjusted from 16 April 1999 to 1 August 1998.

APPLICANT STATES:  That she met the cutoff score for promotion to Sergeant, E-5 on 1 August 1998 but she could not get promoted without first attending the Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC).  She was denied attendance several times because of her medical profile.  The commander of Darnall Army Hospital finally wrote a letter for her that got her in a class.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

She enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 December 1992.  She completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 75H (Personnel Management Specialist).  

On 21 November 1996, the applicant was given a physical profile of no running, no push-ups, no standing more than 10 minutes due to a medical condition of plantar fasciitis, ankle equinus bilateral.  

On 1 April 1997, a medical evaluation board diagnosed the applicant with symptomatic pes planus (flat foot) bilateral and referred her to a physical evaluation board (PEB).  She did not agree with the board’s findings.  In her letter of rebuttal, she stated in part that if she pushed herself too far, the pain in her feet was so intense it would travel up her shins.  After ultrasound treatments gave her some relief, she started physical training again, but the pain came back worse than before.  Sharp pains were present in both her hands and feet which made it feel like she was walking on broken bones.  

In April 1997, an informal PEB found the applicant unfit for duty due to symptomatic pes planus bilateral, existed prior to entry in service (EPTS) and recommended her separation without disability benefits.  She did not concur.  She waived a formal hearing but did submit an appeal.  In her appeal she noted that she was in excellent health until she was injured in March 1994 during an extensive platoon workout of an aerobic exercise; therefore, she did not understand the finding of EPTS.  

On 11 June 1997, a formal PEB found the applicant fit for duty.  She concurred in the finding.

In March 1998, the applicant appeared before a Sergeant, E-5 promotion board and she met the cutoff score for promotion on 1 August 1998.  However, she could not be promoted until she completed PLDC.  The local Non-Commissioned Officer Academy had apparently refused her admittance to PLDC based upon her profile.

On 13 November 1998, the applicant’s profile was updated to state “no running, no push-ups, alternate APFT authorized, no standing more than 10 minutes, no wearing pump shoes, soft shoes authorized (military appropriate.)”  On this date also, she passed the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) by completing 58 sit-ups and completing the alternate walk in under 36 minutes.

On 23 February 1999, the Deputy Commander for Clinical Services, Darnall Army Hospital prepared a letter for the Academy.  He stated that whether the applicant could tolerate such activities as would exacerbate her lower extremity problems during the 4-week duration of PLDC was an open question that could not be answered until she was given the opportunity to try.  It was unlikely that she would suffer irreparable harm should PLDC participation precipitate a flare of her medical conditions.  The worst that would likely happen was that her fasciitis would flare and she would be physically unable to complete PLDC.

The applicant was admitted for attendance at PLDC, graduated on 16 April 1999, and was promoted to Sergeant effective 16 April 1999.

Army Regulation 600-8-19 prescribes the enlisted promotions and reductions function of the military personnel system.  In pertinent part, it provides that, effective 1 October 1992, soldiers were required to be graduates of PLDC prior to promotion to SGT.  Soldiers are allowed to compete for promotion to SGT but cannot be promoted to SGT until completion of PLDC.  Soldiers who met a cutoff score for SGT after 1 October 1992, but were not PLDC graduates, would be promoted effective the date of graduation from PLDC.  Soldiers could request an exception to policy to this requirement.  Approval of this exception gave them the effective date and date of rank of the graduation date of the first available class after they met the cutoff score, even if they did not attend that course, as long as attendance was precluded through no fault of their own and they eventually did graduate from the next available class they were able to attend.

Training and Doctrine Command Regulation 351-10 prescribes officer, warrant officer and non-commissioned officer training policies.  In pertinent part, it states that soldiers with a permanent designator of 3 or 4 in the physical profile and have been allowed to retain their MOS will be eligible to attend appropriate courses and train within the limits of their profile provided they can meet minimum course graduation requirements.  The NCOA Commandant is the determining authority of whether or not a soldier’s profile would allow him or her to meet graduation requirements.  (PLDC training includes such activities as prolonged standing and marching, physical training, and a combat simulated field training test.)

In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Promotions Branch, Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) (SEE ATTACHED).  That office recommended disapproval of the applicant’s request, noting in part that the applicant was not fully eligible to attend PLDC or request an NCOES waiver due to her medical profile.

A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment or rebuttal.  She did not respond within the given time frame.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion, it is concluded:

1.  The Board empathizes with the applicant’s concern, as outlined so succinctly in the doctor’s letter to the NCOA.  She was found fit for duty despite her profile but she could not advance in her career without PLDC attendance, and the NCOA Commandant would not let her attend PLDC because of her profile.
However, it is the NCOA Commandant’s decision to make and he was not a doctor.  Based upon the applicant’s restrictive profile, the Board concludes he made the correct decision, since the wrong decision could possibly have caused a permanent worsening of her medical condition that would also have marked her as a PLDC non-graduate, also harming her military career.  (Even her doctor, in his statement, noted only that it was unlikely that she would suffer irreparable harm should PLDC participation precipitate a flare of her medical conditions, not that she definitely would not suffer such harm.)

2.  The Board concludes the NCOA Commandant was justified in changing his decision to allow her attendance only after receiving medical assurance that PLDC participation would not be likely to irreparably harm the applicant.  She was then promoted effective the date she graduated.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__lls___  __mdm___  __cjs___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999026684	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991007	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.04	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.