PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:           21 December 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000037124

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

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Richard H. Allen		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz Jr.		Member	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, a change in the characterization and reason for her discharge. 

3.  The applicant states, in essence, that she was discharged because she was supposed to have had a pre-existing medical condition in her feet, when, in fact she did not. This is supported by a statement from her previous employers (she was a cosmetology student and a postal mail sorter, and as such to be on her feet most of the day) and military and civilian medical notes, MRI/CT/X-Ray evaluations conducted between September 1998 and September 1999, essentially failing to find evidence of stress fractures or bony coalitions (protruding bone masses) in her feet and ankles.  She also states that she completed an Army Fitness Course prior to her medical condition worsening and presents a certificate of completion of this training cycle, dated 2 October 1998. 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that on 13 November 1997 she was found medically qualified for enlistment in the Regular Army.  On 5 May 1998, she enlisted in the RA for 5 years, in pay grade E-2, for training as a military policeman.  She was assigned to Fort McClellan, Alabama for her one-station unit training (OSUT) course of instruction. 

5.  Extracts of her military medical submitted with her application show that on 
13 May 1998, she received treatment for shin-splints, then on 2 June 1998 for right knee pain.  On 22 June 1998 she received treatment for calluses on her feet.  On 12 July 1998, she had a sprain to her left ankle.  On 17 July, 10 and 
17 August and 3 September 1998 she received medical treatment for a stress fracture of the left foot.  There is indication that she may also have had a stress fracture in her right foot during this period.  

6.  On 15 October 1998, a DA Form 4707 (Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) Proceedings) was held.  That board essentially found that the applicant had not met medical fitness standards for enlistment under the provisions of paragraph 2-10b(6), chapter 2, Army Regulation 40-501.  Her condition was diagnosed as 1) Bony coalitions of the 3rd metatarsal, 3rd cuneiform bones bilaterally and 2) multiple bony stress reaction of the metatarsal along with bilateral plantar fascial strain, i.e., bony protrusions in her insteps and strain of the plantar muscle on the bottom of her feet.  The Board recommended that she be separated with an uncharacterized discharge.  The applicant concurred with this board's recommendation on 9 November 1998.  

7.  On 17 November 1998, the applicant was discharged with an uncharacterized discharge in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11, by reason of failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards.  She was credited with 6 months and 13 days active duty and no lost time or recorded indisciplines.  Her separation rank was private, pay grade E-2.

8.  The applicant submitted several civilian medical evaluations involving MRI's, CT's and X-rays, of her feet and ankles completed between September 
1998 and December 1999.  They confirm that she is having pain, but essentially there is no evidence of bony coalitions.  Any foot fractures have healed.

9.  The medical advisor to this Board has advised that he has reviewed the MRI and CT films submitted by the applicant and he can find no evidence of any bony coalitions in her feet.  Essentially, if this condition had existed in 1998, it would still be present today.  Further, there is no evidence of foot fractures, but such fractures would have healed without evidence of the fractures.  He notes that the original films used in the EPSBD proceedings are no longer available, and can only surmise that the films may have been of some other individual's feet/ankles. This observation is supported by the civilian evaluations she has obtained which fail to support the coalition diagnosis.  

10.  In summary, the medical advisor concludes that insufficient evidence has been presented to support a medical discharge for the applicant.  

11.  The medical advisor's comments were submitted for review of the applicant in April, June and September 2000.  She responded as indicated in paragraph 8, above.  

12.  The applicant subsequently submitted a statement, dated 28 November 2000, from her current attending physician who comments on her 2-year history of chronic pain syndrome.  The consensus of the diagnosis is that of a chronic plantar fasciitis (inflammation of the tendons from the heel to the toes in the foot), as well as an old stress fracture, which has resulted in her chronic pain syndrome and her basic inability to walk around very much.  She uses a wheelchair and has to sit down on it to cook and do household chores.  The treatment plan is that of ongoing chronic pain medication to alleviate her chronic pain symptoms.

13.  Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 3-3a, as amended, provides that for an individual to be found unfit by reason of physical disability, he or she must be unable to perform the duties of his/her office, grade, rank or rating.

14.  Title 10, United States Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years of service, but must have a disability rated at no less than 30 percent.  

15. Title 38, United States Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  The DVA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.  The DVA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.  Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency.  Therefore, the applicant should work with the DVA for continued assistance and treatment of her medical problems.  

16.  In connection with separation, soldiers with less than 6 months service at the time the discharge process is initiated, are considered to be in an entry level status.  Paragraph 3-9 of AR 635-200, states that soldiers in an entry level status will receive a characterization of service of uncharacterized.  An honorable discharge will only be granted in those cases where the Secretary of the Army, on a case-by-case basis, determines that a characterization of honorable is clearly warranted by the presence of unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of duty.

17.  Army Regulation 635-200, at chapter 5, provides, in pertinent part, that the Secretary of the Army may approve the discharge of soldiers for the convenience of Government, when it is determined that the discharge would be in the best interest of the Army.  An honorable discharge, a general discharge under honorable conditions, or an uncharacterized discharge, if the soldier is in an entry level status, may be directed under this separation authority. 

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In retrospect, the medical evidence of record establishes that the applicant did not have a preexisting medical condition, bony coalitions of her feet at the time of her discharge.  However, she has also not provided any probative medical evidence of an unfitting medical condition at the time of her military service.  If her condition was caused by stress reaction to training, this was not unfitting or warranted referral to the Army Disability System.  

2.  Notwithstanding the above, the applicant was discharged from active duty.  She has submitted evidence of continuing medical problems which would most likely preclude her to medically qualify at this time to reenter the Army.  

3.  Therefore, it would be appropriate for the Board to recommend that her records be corrected to show that her discharge on 17 November 1998 was in the best interest of the Army, based upon a determination by the Secretary of the Army under the provisions of chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-200.  

4.  However, the Board also notes that the discharge proceedings were initiated on 15 October 1998, the date the EPSBD was held.  Therefore, she was in an entry level status at the time the discharge was initiated and her uncharacterized discharge is appropriate.  

5.  Additionally, in view of her ongoing medical problems, she is encouraged to work with the DVA to determine her entitlement to any veterans benefits to which she might qualify.

6.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected, but only as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by:

	a.  by showing that the action to separate the individual concerned from active duty on 17 November 1998 by reason of a pre-existing medical condition is void and of no force or effect; and  

b.  by showing that she was discharged on 17 November 1998, in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, by reason of Secretarial Authority, with an uncharacterized period of service.    

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__kak___  __ewl____  __gjw___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		      __Karol A. Kennedy___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000037124	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001221	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UNCHAR	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19981117	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chapter 5	
DISCHARGE REASON	A31.00	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT IN PART	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DASA	
ISSUES         1.	144.00	
2.	A01.14	
3.	110.03	
4.	110.02	
5.		
6.