BOARD DATE: 13 October 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150007494 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING _x______ __x______ __x___ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 13 October 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150007494 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. __________x_______________ CHAIRPERSON 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. BOARD DATE: 13 October 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150007494 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests correction of her military record to show she was medically retired instead of discharged upon her expiration term of service (ETS). 2. The applicant states the Army denied her a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and forced her to separate from military service upon her ETS even though she could not pass an Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT). Dr. Pxx Txxxxxx denied her doctor's request to send her to an MEB for her asthma. She believes she should have been medically retired. a. Prior to an MEB submitted on her behalf by her doctor, she had years of strife with Master Sergeant (MSG) Vxxxx Dxxxxxx, a former supervisor, which culminated with the loss of her 27D (Paralegal Specialist) military occupational specialty (MOS). This occurred in April 2013, and when the applicant returned to her unit, MSG Vxxxx Dxxxxxx had a separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct typed up. b. The applicant's first sergeant (1SG) refused to "chapter" her, but in the interest of being honest, she indicated that a separation action had been prepared in paperwork she submitted to Dr. Pxx Txxxxxx. The applicant's Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) counsel told her that Dr. Pxx Txxxxx did not move forward on her MEB because she was pending separation. Her PEB counsel contacted Dr. Pxx Txxxxxx and informed the doctor that the MEB should proceed since the applicant's unit did not submit the chapter paperwork. The applicant's PEB counsel told her that "it appears she (Dr. Txxxxxx) had found a way around inciting a Med-Board for [the applicant] (when she said she does not believe [the applicant's] inability to pass an APFT was due to a medical condition)." c. The applicant states she does not have any documentation of these events, but the totality of the circumstances is why she wants a review of the decision in her case and a reversal of that decision. 3. The applicant provides: * letter from the Army Review Boards Agency, Case Management Division, dated 25 August 2015 * self-authored statement, dated 30 September 2015 * four Standard Forms (SF) 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care), dated 12 August 2008, 5 May 2014, 1and 2 August 2014 * three Consultation Reports, dated 5 May 2010 and 24 July 2013 * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), Member-1 and Member-4 copies CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. 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 Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant's record contains an DD Form 2808 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 4 June 2003, which shows her nose, sinuses, mouth, throat, heart, lungs, and chest examinations revealed normal results and she was found medically acceptable for enlistment. This document does not indicate that the applicant reported or medical personnel noted any shortness of breath, wheezing, or asthma. 3. She enlisted in the Regular Army 21 August 2003 and later reenlisted on 8 March 2007. Her record does not contain nor has she provided any evidence to show she experienced exercise-induced asthma or difficulty breathing during exercise or while running during the three and a half years between her initial enlistment and her reenlistment. 4. She was promoted to the rank/grade of sergeant (SGT)/E-5 on 1 January 2008. 5. She provided an SF 600, which shows she was seen at the Martin Army Community Hospital, Allergy/Immunology Clinic, Fort Benning GA, on 12 August 2008. The medical record shows: a. A provisional diagnosis of "shortness of breath with exertion for years. [Evaluation for exercise induced RAD [reactive airway disease]." b. The evaluation was requested because she reported that her ears felt full, she had a sore throat, and she experienced shortness of breath and coughing on exertion. c. The medical notes state the requested evaluation was for possible exercise-induced asthma. The applicant noted that she had never been able to run long distances. She was able to walk faster than she can run, but could sprint short distances. She also reported that she had always been able to run and when she got tired, she was able to walk and did fine. She always assumed she was out of shape when she was younger. The applicant reported she had no problems with an elliptical trainer; she only had problems with running, but had no problems with wheezing. The applicant reported she felt like she could not breathe; it started with having a hard time breathing and she felt like she was not able to get enough air in through her nose. She stated she could pass the APFT. Though she failed one in April, she passed a retest. She wanted to know if she had exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB). She denied problems breathing outside of the APFT. She stated she never tried exercising or taking an APFT with albuterol. She noted that she tried her daughter's albuterol nebulizer when she was home on leave and was not sure that it made any difference. She further noted that she had a cold and bad coughing at that time. She stated that in cold weather, she sometime got bronchitis and a cough. She also reported that she frequently had a cold-congestion in the morning, and she sometimes had rhinorrhea (a condition where the nasal cavity is filled with a significant amount of mucus fluid), which was worse in the cold, but was not pruritic (itchy). d. An examination of her nose revealed the presence of nasal discharge and rhinorrhea. The nasal passage contained mucus that was not pale; the passage was swollen and edematous (accumulation of an excessive amount of watery fluid in cells) but there was no sinus tenderness. Her lungs were clear to auscultation, there was no wheezing, no rhonchi (continuous low pitched, rattling lung sounds) were heard, and there were no rales/crackles (the clicking, rattling, or crackling noises that may be made by one or both lungs of a human with a respiratory disease) heard. e. The examining physician noted that it was possible the applicant had mild EIB. The physician though it unlikely that allergy played a role in the applicant's symptoms and noted that deconditioning was also a possibility. The physician stated the applicant would try Singulair as a controller for EIB and use albuterol as needed. The physician directed her to try Singulair alone for two weeks and then add albuterol without pretreatment, with use only as needed. If the prescribed regime did not seem adequate to control her symptoms, then she could start using the albuterol, 1-2 puffs 20-30 minutes prior to exercise and as needed. 6. Her Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) for the period 1 January 2008 through 31 December 2008 shows she passed the APFT on 5 August 2008 and indicated she was successful in the rated area of "Physical Fitness [and] Military Bearing." Her rater included the bullet comment "constantly takes the initiative and leads Company Physical Training" in this rated area. 7. The applicant reenlisted on 17 April 2009. 8. Her NCOER for the period 1 January 2009 through 5 June 2009 shows she passed the APFT on 27 May 2009 and indicated she was successful in the rated area of "Physical Fitness [and] Military Bearing" Her rater included the bullet comment "constantly takes the initiative and leads Company Physical Training" in this rated area. 9. Her NCOER for the rated period 6 June 2009 through 16 February 2010 shows she passed the APFT on 2 September 2009 and indicated she was successful in the rated area of "Physical Fitness [and] Military Bearing." 10. She provided a consultation report issued by Evans Army Community Hospital, Fort Carson, CO, on 5 May 2010. Her doctor stated the applicant's symptoms were consistent with exercise-induced asthma as her symptoms included shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing with exertion. The doctor ordered an exercise pulmonary function test (PFT). The consult results state that the applicant was seen for difficulty breathing (dyspnea) and the appointment comments noted the applicant had an upper respiratory infection. 11. Her NCOER for the period 17 February 2010 through 16 February 2011 shows she was on profile when the APFT was conducted on 1 March 2010 and indicates she was successful in the rated area of "Physical Fitness [and] Military Bearing." The rated area of "Leadership" contains the bullet comment, "led PT [physical training] for over 20 Soldiers and officers." 12. Her NCOER for the period 17 February 2011 through 16 February 2012 contains the entries below: a. Part IVa. (Army Values) contains the following block marks and bullet comments: (1) (Respect/EO/EEO: Treats people as they should be treated) contains a "NO" block mark. (2) (Honor: Lives up to all the Army values) contains a "NO" block mark. (3) (Integrity: Does what is right - legally and morally) contains a "NO" block mark. (4) Her rater included the bullet comments "showed disrespect to NCOs and junior enlisted Soldiers and required constant supervision" and "used job position to obtain Soldiers' information for personal gain." b. Part IVc. (Physical Fitness and Military Bearing) contains the block mark "NEEDS IMPROVEMENT (Some)". This item also shows that she was on a profile when the APFT occurred on 9 May 2011 and does not included an entry for the height and weight portion, indicating that her profile was for pregnancy. This item also includes the bullet comments "lacked military bearing by bringing personal affairs into a professional environment effecting all Soldiers within the office" and "exempt from APFT and [height and weight] requirements…" c. Part IVd. (Leadership) contains the block mark "Needs Improvement (Some)". This item also includes the block marks "removed temporarily from her responsibility of mentoring and counseling three junior enlisted Soldiers due to lack of tact and leadership ability" and "demonstrated she was unapproachable by junior enlisted Soldiers due to constant belittling of subordinates." d. Part Va. (Overall Performance and Potential) shows her rater marked her as "Marginal" for overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility. e. Parts Vc. and Vd. show her senior rater marked her as "4-Fair" in overall performance and overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility. Additionally, her senior rater included the following bullet comments: * "do not promote due to her inability to lead effectively" * "does not display leadership potential" * "do not sent to ALC [Advanced Leader Course] at this time as she showed no sign of improvement" * "continued to display a lack of tact and respect for Soldiers after being counseled both orally and in writing by her supervisor and other senior NCOs" 13. Her NCOER for the period 17 February 2012 through 17 September 2012 shows she was on profile when the APFT was conducted on 21 August 2012 and indicates she was successful in the rated area of "Physical Fitness [and] Military Bearing." This rated area also contains the bullet comment "attended physical training with over 90% attendance rate." 14. Her record contains a memorandum, subject: Disqualification from Eligibility for the Good Conduct Medal, dated 9 October 2012, which states that her commander disqualified her for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 21 August 2009 to 20 August 2012. a. Her commander did not believe her character was "above reproach" during the referenced period of service. Her commander specifically referenced that "documented instances of [her] unprofessional outbursts and other inappropriate behavior in the workplace, and documented instances of failure to report…" led him to believe that her loyalty and integrity had not been consistently excellent throughout the last three years. In the past, the applicant "failed to adequately meet mission requirements placed upon [her] by her section and supervisors… In doing so, [she]… failed to 'willingly comply with the demands of the military environment.' [The applicant's] recent conflicts with [her] previous supervisor would characterize [her] as a Soldier who has not been 'loyal and obedient to [her] superior' throughout the period in question. [Her commander] acknowledge[d] that all interpersonal conflicts have two sides, [however] as the subordinate Soldier, [the applicant was]… responsible for [her] own inability to reconcile the expectations and needs of [her] superior, to [her] own performance and personal conduct." b. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and elected not to make a statement. 15. Her record contains two statements and a memorandum for record that describe an incident that occurred in the Tricare Service Center inside Evans Community Hospital, on 12 March 2013. On the morning of 12 March 2013, the applicant came into the Tricare office dressed in civilian clothes and wanting to know why her child's doctor was changed. There was another patient in the office and five Tricare employees. The applicant was very agitated because she had been on the phone all morning with the appointment line and other numbers. An employee explained that the Military Treatment Facility (MTF) was allowed to change the providers for patients assigned based on the needs of the MTF and the capacity levels. The applicant asked what needed to happen to change her child's provider back to the original provider. The employee gave the applicant the required forms and explained that the applicant needed to complete the forms and the employee would fax them into Tricare's Triwest office to have the provider changed back. The applicant asked how long the process would take and the employee explained that the process would take 3-5 business days. The applicant sat down, began completing the forms, and began yelling that the provider should never have changed. The applicant stood up with her baby on her hip and started screaming obscenities, "bxxxhes" this and "fxxx" that. The other employees came out of their offices and then the applicant called all of them "bxxxh." The office supervisor came out and asked the applicant to leave the office. The applicant then flung the clipboard and the pen across the room and threw her baby's diaper bag and bottle hitting the television on the wall. Her baby was swinging around on her hip as she did so and the child seemed to be completely oblivious to the yelling and violent behavior. The employee told the applicant that she would not argue with her, especially in front of the small child. The applicant became even more furious when the employee mentioned the child. The applicant stated she was going to call the Military Police after employees informed her they were going to call hospital security. The applicant's behavior frightened the Tricare employees. 16. The applicant's record contains a DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)) dated 21 March 2013 showing her commander initiated a nontransferable flag for adverse action on 20 March 2013. 17. The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on 18 April 2013 for her disorderly conduct, which was of a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces, at Evans Army Community Hospital, Fort Carson, CO on or about 12 March 2013. 18. Her NCOER for the period 18 September 2012 through 19 April 2013 contains the below entries: a. Part IVa. (Army Values) contains the following block marks and bullet comments: (1) (Respect/EO/EEO: Treats people as they should be treated) contains a "NO" block mark. (2) (Honor: Lives up to all the Army values) contains a "NO" block mark. (3) Her rater included the bullet comment "exhibited disorderly conduct at the installation Tricare office by being verbally abusive to civilian employees" b. Part IVc. (Physical Fitness and Military Bearing) contains the block mark "NEEDS IMPROVEMENT (Some)." This item also shows that she was on a profile when the APFT occurred on 1 October 2012. This item also includes the bullet comments "succumbed to common life stressors easily" and "physical fitness level is low, routinely stopped to walk during own-pace runs." c. Part IVd. (Leadership) contains the block mark "NEEDS IMPROVEMENT (MUCH)." This item also includes the bullet comments "committed an act of disorderly conduct at the post hospital resulting in disqualification from MOS 27D, Paralegal Specialist, and relief for cause from duty" and "demonstrated a fighters' mentality which when harnessed could be inspirational; too often this spirited conduct came across as unprofessional." d. Part Va. (Overall Performance and Potential) shows her rater marked her as "Marginal" for overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility. e. Parts Vc. and Vd. show her senior rater marked her as "4-Fair" in overall performance and "5-Poor" in overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility. Additionally, her senior rater included the following bullet comments: * "do not promote" * "decent overall performance in the specific tasks of her office job; worked below her current rank and grade and did not supervise Soldiers" * "continue to develop and train, potential is low due to a lack of professionalism and substandard personal conduct" * "continued to display a lack of tact and respect for Soldiers after being counseled both orally and in writing by her supervisor and other senior NCOs" 19. She provided a consultation note issued by Evans Army Community Hospital, on 24 July 2013. The notes show Army providers referred her to a civilian provider, Pulmonary Associates, for a pulmonary consultation for dyspnea on exertion and wheezing. Her consultation was on 18 July 2013, and the Pulmonary Associates physician noted: a. The applicant reported that, all her life, she never had a great capacity for exercise. She was able to pass the APFT test while stationed in South Carolina, but only by a short amount of time. She would jog quickly and then had to stop and rest before picking up the jog again. b. In 2010, she moved to Colorado Springs, which has an altitude of 6,000 feet. She initially had problems with her right knee, so she did not have to run during physical training; she was allowed to walk. Then she became pregnant in 2012. c. After her delivery she developed some left shoulder problems and had back surgery. Once again, she was not doing her physical training; she was not exercising regularly. d. She was unable to pass her APFT in the spring because she was unable to run fast enough. She said she could jog at a slow pace but if she pushed herself, she had to stop. Often when she stopped, she had a sense of wheezing in her chest without real throat tightness or stridor (a harsh vibrating noise when breathing, caused by obstruction of the windpipe or larynx). There was a mild cough but it was nonproductive only with mild exercise. Chronic nasal drainage was problematic, particularly in Colorado. She had no real chest pain or leg swelling. There was no presyncope (a state consisting of lightheadedness, muscular weakness, blurred vision, and feeling faint). e. She was started on an albuterol inhaler before exercise, which made only a little difference. An exercise spirometry was ordered along with a cardiopulmonary exercise test. (1) The baseline spirometry did have a very mild reduction in expiratory flow FEV1 (forced expiratory volume in 1 second) and mid-expiratory flows. There was no definite worsening with exercise. (2) The cardiopulmonary exercise test was notable for an anaerobic threshold at only 3 minutes of exercise with her heart rate coming up to 165 at 5 miles per hour on a 6 percent grade. f. Her chest x-ray was normal, her echocardiogram was normal, and no pulmonary hypertension or valvular heart disease was noted. She did not have a bubble study. g. The physician stated his examination revealed the applicant was a tall female in no respiratory distress with frequent sniffles. She had moderate rhinitis and a clear chest, as verified by her x-rays. h. The physician diagnosed her with asthma without status asthmaticus (an acute, severe asthma attack that doesn't respond to usual use of inhaled bronchodilators and is associated with symptoms of potential respiratory failure) and respiratory abnormality NEC (not elsewhere classifiable). (1) The doctor noted she had dyspnea on exertion and stated that he felt the results of her cardiopulmonary exercise test were primarily due to deconditioning. He also stated that she probably has a small component of exercise-induced asthma as well, though her FEV1 did not drop significantly with exercise. (2) Based on her history, it seemed she had merely gotten out of shape over the last few years with orthopedic problems and pregnancy weight gain. i. The doctor recommended treatment from rhinitis with Astelin and Flonase. He stated the applicant just started Asmanex and she would receive the maximum benefit from this medication in 8 to 12 weeks. She was directed to continue with the Asmanex and the albuterol before exercise. The doctor also discussed exercise and training and recommended she add intensity to her exercise. He noted that he prescribed physical therapy for training in the next few weeks and hoped this would help her get back into condition and pass her AFPT. 20. Her NCOER for the period 20 April 2013 through 19 April 2014 shows she passed the APFT on 5 November 2013. 21. She provided an SF 600, issued by the Evans Army Community Hospital, on 5 May 2014. The provider noted the applicant visited with questions regarding a profile for MEB purposes. The applicant had a history of difficulty running due to reported dyspnea, for which she had been evaluated over the past two years. She completed a physical therapy conditioning program last year and was seen by Pulmonology. She reported no change in her medical history concerning her difficulty with running. a. Her physician noted she discussed the findings from the MEB section with the applicant. She informed the applicant that she did send a permanent profile to the MEB section but Dr. Pxx Txxxxxx did not feel that her inability to run was due to a medical cause, particularly asthma. The physician encouraged the applicant to start conditioning to take the APFT and stated that there was "no reason she cannot work out. She has inhalers at home to use for what has been classified as mild exercise induced asthma." The physician also stated that many Soldiers have EIH (exercise-induced hypoxemia) and are able to fully perform their APFT and duties. The applicant stated she wished to continue her active military service. The physician stated, "I strongly encourage her to start working out, which from what I understand today she does not at this time. She has an APFT in a month and a half. She should start preparing for this now… I also advised that she cannot wait to start working out a month before her APFT. She needs to start months well in advance, which means routine exercising. I did explain to her that there are no profiles for asthma or exercise induced asthma which allow a service member to continue active military service." 22. She provided an SF Form 600, issued by the Evans Army Community Hospital, on 12 August 2014. The physician's notes show the applicant's visit was for shortness of breath due to asthma. The notes indicate that the applicant took her asthma medications daily which includes Asthmanex and used her albuterol inhaler as needed. She was ETSing out of the Army the following day and had plans to try to enter the Army Reserve. The applicant reported that she took her APFT that morning and stated she could not pass the run and was having shortness of breath during and after the run. She also requested a refill of her current medications prior to ETSing. 23. The applicant was honorably discharged on 2 October 2014. Her DD Form 214 shows she was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 4 for completion of required active service and assigned separation code (SPD) "JBK" and reentry code (RE code) "3." REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 4 (Separation for Expiration of Service Obligation), states a Soldier will be separated upon expiration of enlistment or fulfillment of service obligation. 2. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD), table 2-3, states that SPD code "JBK" is the correct SPD code to use for Soldiers involuntarily separated for completion of required active service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635–200, chapter 4. Except for those with a declination of continued service statement in force, the SPD code "JBK" is to be used for Regular Army Soldiers ineligible for, barred from, or otherwise denied reenlistment who are separated on completion of enlistment. 3. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross-Reference Table, shows an RE code of 3 is used when a Soldier receives the SPD code of "JBK." 4. Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program) covers the eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army and the U.S. Army Reserve. Table 3-1 includes a list of the RE codes and shows that an RE code of 3 applies to Soldiers who are not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but the disqualification is waivable if a waiver is granted. 5. Title 10, U.S. Code (USC), chapter 61, provides the Secretaries of the Military Departments with authority to retire or discharge a member if they find the member unfit to perform military duties because of physical disability. The U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency, under the operational control of the Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), is responsible for administering the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) and executes Secretary of the Army decision-making authority as directed by Congress in chapter 61 and in accordance with Department of Defense Directive 1332.18 and Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation). a. The objectives of the system are to maintain an effective and fit military organization with maximum use of available manpower, provide benefits for eligible Soldiers whose military service is terminated because of service-connected disability, and provide prompt disability processing while ensuring the rights and interests of the government and the Soldier are protected. b. Soldiers are referred to the PDES when they no longer meet medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3, as evidenced in an MEB, when a Soldier receives a permanent medical profile, P3 or P4. c. The PDES assessment process involves two distinct stages: The MEB and the PEB. The purpose of the MEB is to determine whether the service member's injury or illness is severe enough to compromise his/her ability to return to full duty based on the job specialty designation of the branch of service. A PEB is an administrative body possessing the authority to determine whether a service member is fit for duty. A designation of "unfit for duty" is required before an individual can be separated from the military because of an injury or medical condition. Service members who are determined to be unfit for duty due to disability are either separated from the military or are permanently retired, depending on the severity of the disability and length of military service. Individuals who are "separated" receive a one-time severance payment, while veterans who retire based upon disability receive monthly military retirement payments and have access to all other benefits afforded to military retirees. d. The mere presence of a medical impairment does not in and of itself justify a finding of unfitness. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier may reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. Reasonable performance of the preponderance of duties will invariably result in a finding of fitness for continued duty. A Soldier is physically unfit when a medical impairment prevents reasonable performance of the duties required of the Soldier's office, grade, rank, or rating. 6. Army Regulation 40-501 governs medical fitness standards for enlistment, induction, appointment (including officer procurement programs), retention, and separation (including retirement). Paragraph 3-3a provides that performance of duty despite an impairment would be considered presumptive evidence of physical fitness. Paragraph 3-3b(1), as amended, provides that for an individual to be found unfit by reason of physical disability, he must be unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating. 7. Title 10, USC, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rating of at least 30 percent. Title 10, USC, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years of service and a disability rating at less than 30 percent. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant states, in effect, she was refused an MEB and believes she should have received a medical retirement. 2. The evidence of record does not indicate that medical authorities ever determined that her condition failed retention standards or that her condition was unfitting. Additionally, her record does not contain any information showing she had a permanent physical profile for asthma. She had regular contact with medical providers, none of whom found she should be referred to the PDES. 3. Her medical records indicate that medical officials believed her problem with running had more to do with the fact that she was out of shape than with her medical condition. Additionally, doctors did not feel she required an MEB, meaning that the medical staff did not feel her condition failed retention standards. 4. Before a Soldier can be medically retired, he or she must be found unfit and receive at least a 30 percent disability rating. A disability rating assigned by the Army is based on the level of disability at the time of the Soldier's separation and can only be accomplished through the PDES. Only those conditions that render a member unfit for continued military duty at the time of separation receive a rating. A Soldier is physically unfit when a medical impairment prevents reasonable performance of the duties required of the Soldier's office, grade, rank, or rating. 6. The available evidence shows her discharge based on her ETS was accomplished in compliance with the governing law and regulations. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150007494 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150007494 8 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2