IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 May 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150011462 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ____X____ ____X__ ____X___ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 May 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150011462 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by affording her processing through the Disability Evaluation System (DES) to determine if she should have been discharged or retired by reason of physical disability. a. In the event that a formal PEB becomes necessary, the individual concerned will be issued invitational travel orders to prepare for and participate in consideration of her case by a formal PEB. All required reviews and approvals will be made subsequent to completion of the formal PEB. b. Should a determination be made that the applicant should have been separated under the DES, these proceedings will serve as the authority to void her administrative separation and to issue her the appropriate separation retroactive to her original separation date, with entitlement to all back pay and allowances and/or retired pay, less any entitlements already received. 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to medical separation at this time. ____________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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 May 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150011462 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 the narrative reason for her separation from chapter 5-17 based on a mental condition to a separation based on a physical condition. 2. The applicant states she suffered injuries while serving on active duty and the untimely medical care resulted in additional physical and mental conditions. This led to and resulted in the type of discharge she received. She continues to suffer from both the physical and mental conditions she sustained while on active duty. She should have been medically boarded out of the Army, not discharged without it being a disability and without any resources to care for her injuries. She adds: a. She enlisted into the Army on 3 September 2013. She entered Basic Combat Training (BCT) at Fort Jackson, SC, in optimum physical and mental condition. In approximately the third week of BCT, she incurred bilateral pelvic stress fractures. After a week of abnormal groin pain, that she thought was possibly a pulled muscle, she went to sick-call, even though they were encouraged to never go to sick call "unless we were dying." She was seen at the Troop Medical Clinic (TMC) for in-training Soldiers in regards to this concern and/or injury. She was given Ibuprofen, Tylenol, Tramadol and a light profile for a few days. She then returned to duty as normal. She continued to train and carry out her duties. As a newly enlisted and in-training Soldier, she wanted to complete her training and excel while doing so. She felt it was necessary to do as her drill sergeants and health care providers told her and press on through the pain and not show any weakness. b. She graduated from BCT and moved on to Advanced Individual Training (AIT), also at Fort Jackson. They were briefed during the first week by civilian health care providers to make sure they took care of themselves if they were to become injured or had been injured during BCT and were intimidated by their drill sergeants to not seek assistance for those injuries. Many Soldiers, especially females, came forward at that time with various concerns, several of those being hip related injuries. This prompted her to seek an exam to make sure her injury wasn't substantial and/or was at least healing. She had become even more concerned that the pain she was feeling everyday was being covered up by the medications she was given. She wanted to be assured that she had not done any further damage to her pelvis or hips. She went to sick call during the first week of AIT. She saw a provider at the TMC where she explained what had happened during BCT. The provider did not examine her or order any sort of additional labs or tests. She was told that if she wasn't in distressing pain at rest there was nothing that could be done for her. She asked for more ibuprofen for pain during running and other high impact activities that seemed to aggravate and stir up her pain. She was not on a profile at this time and she continued to train and carry out her duties. c. During Christmas Exodus, or victory block leave, she visited her mother at Fort Gordon, GA. She was aware of her injury and the pain she was enduring and insisted that she see an orthopedist while she was there. Because her mother works at Eisenhower Army Medical Center, Fort Gordon, she was able to have an orthopedist see her within the first few days of her arrival. She was examined and x-rayed during that time. She was told that her injury was quite concerning and she was put on a physically limiting profile. She remained on a profile since that time. She returned to AIT from block leave. During AIT, she was chosen numerous times above her peers for leadership positions including being the platoon guide for 52 Soldiers. She excelled academically, earning the honor graduate title of her class. Her academic instructor and one of her platoon sergeants wrote her outstanding recommendation letters for Officer Candidate School (OCS) upon her graduation as well. She was a hold-over at Fort Jackson because she had no assignment. She found this out a couple of nights before her graduation date. She previously had an assignment, but it was deleted because approximately a week before her graduation, during her airborne physical, she was disqualified from airborne school due to her pelvic injury. This was not only disappointing but anxiety-producing. A couple of weeks into AIT, she was told she was going to Fort Carson, CO, after completion of airborne school. However, a few weeks later she checked her Enlisted Record Brief and it said Fort Bragg, NC. On the evening of 5 February 2014, she received orders for Germany and had to clear Fort Jackson by that Friday, 7 February 2014. She flew out of South Carolina on 10 February 2014. She had no time to make any arrangements to move overseas and left her mother a power of attorney. d. She arrived at her duty station, Smith Barracks, Baumholder, Germany, on 11 February 2014. Within the first couple of weeks, she scheduled an appointment with her primary care manager (PCM) as part of her in-processing. By this time she had developed substantial knee pain and sensitivity, along with severe headaches in addition to the pelvic injury and pain she was already having. She addressed these concerns with her PCM. She had x-rays of her pelvis taken in March 2014. She asked to see an orthopedist but was referred to physical therapy instead. She went to physical therapy from approximately March 2014 to June 2014. During this time she was walking back and forth to all of these appointments, due to having no transportation. Her vehicle had not arrived yet and no assistance had been provided. During a follow-up visit to her PCM, she experienced extreme anxiety and became very emotional. The provider recommended that she "talk to someone." She started seeing Behavioral Heath (BH) in March 2014. She had become stressed, anxious, and upset since incurring these injuries. She continued to seek treatment through BH weekly until leaving Baumholder, Germany. During that time she was put on medications that helped with her depressed mood, anxiety, lack of concentration, sleep troubles and migraine headaches. e. While she was in Germany dealing with all of these medical issues, her mother became concerned about her wellbeing and lack of support. She had been relaying what she had been discussing with her mother about her injuries to a couple of the orthopedists at Eisenhower Army Medical Center, Fort Gordon. She made contact with her chain of command several times regarding her concern. As a result of her mother's concern, in June 2014 her unit surgeon spoke with her in regards to her physical injuries. She again asked for a referral to orthopedics. She was told that she did not need to see orthopedics and that an injury such as hers could take a year or so to heal. She also saw a physician assistant (PA) in her unit in regards to a referral to orthopedics. She was told he would put one in for her, but it would have to be reviewed for approval. After calling the orthopedic clinic every day for over a week, she began to wonder about the referral. She contacted the PA and was reassured that he would submit the referral. It never got submitted. She scheduled an appointment with her new PCM, since the one she had previously had been reassigned. It took over a month for her to see her new PCM. She agreed to refer her to orthopedics located at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center (about 45 minutes away from Baumholder). It took another 5 weeks to get an appointment with the orthopedic clinic. She finally saw an orthopedist in September 2014. The orthopedist did not do a physical exam, only asked her a few questions and then ordered a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), x-rays, labs, an appointment with endocrinology and told her to schedule a follow up appointment when all those things had been completed. She did as he said and was told after the follow up appointment that all was fine. She told him that this was great news; however, she wondered why she was still having pain and wanted to know if that was normal. She was told that it could be a gynecological issue and she may want to make an appointment with them. f. While she was dealing with all of these medical issues, not only did she seek help from health care providers, but also reached out to her unit chaplain. Her direct leadership was well aware of her contact with her mother and she read and watched faith based inspirational teachings. She sought out all within her reach to get through this. In July 2014, she was informed by her Commander that her BH care provider had recommended that she be separated from the Army for issues that resulted from her physical injuries. She did not question or disagree with this decision. From the time she had arrived in Germany it seemed she was unable to "cohese" with her unit due to her inability to perform physically. Her numerous appointments and the pain she was enduring were affecting her everyday life. She had plans of going to OCS and becoming an Army officer like her parents. This didn't seem to be a likely career path for her anymore. g. She left Germany in December 2014. After the long flight from Germany she started having unusual concerning pain in her pelvic/hip area. She was able to see an orthopedist right away at Fort Gordon while she was on transition leave. The orthopedist conducted a physical examination, where he suspected that she had a labral tear in her right hip. Labs, an arthrogram and MRI were ordered to be sure of this. The MRI confirmed that she had a labral tear in her right hip and this is what is causing so much pain. He suggested a hip arthroscopy procedure to see how bad the tear is and then possibly repair the tear at that time. The orthopedist suggested she remain on active duty until these on-going injuries were taken care of and then that she should be medically boarded, not chaptered out of the Army. Upon finding out this diagnosis and recommendation, she immediately met with the Judge Advocate General (JAG) and the Inspector General (IG) at Fort Gordon. She made numerous inquiries to the JAG and the IG, but no guidance was given as to what she needed to do. She was only a few days away from her official separation date. Because of the time limitations, she was unable to affect anything in regards to remaining on active duty. h. Her next course of action was to utilize her 180 days of health care benefits upon her separation. She went to the TRICARE office at Fort Gordon just to make sure she was informed and wanted to know where to get her new identification card made. She was informed that she actually had no health care benefits as of 8 January 2015. There is a certain code on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) that makes her ineligible for any kind of transition benefits. She was shocked because all through her transition process she had been informed by numerous personnel that she was entitled to 180 days of heath care benefits. She was even given paperwork from the TRICARE office before she left Germany with all the information. She thought there had been a simple error or mistake made. She called the transition office in Germany that had processed her orders. She was told that she volunteered to get out of the Army so she wasn't eligible for any benefits. She told the person she spoke with that this was an involuntary separation initiated by her command. She was told that if she wanted anything changed the only way to do it was through the Army Review Boards Agency. She contacted the JAG office in Baumholder, Germany and the new company commander in Germany in regards to her situation. She wanted to make him aware of what was going on and request any assistance that he may provide. The JAG office never responded to her inquiry. The commander responded, but no resolution was offered. i. She came into the U.S. Army with no physical limitations. She was excited for the opportunity to serve the country and be part of an organization that she has witnessed through her parents her entire life. She completed all of her training, served honorably and excelled in her duties. If she had received timely and appropriate medical attention this may have had a different outcome. She is requesting a medical discharge with appropriate compensation. 3. The applicant provides: * Airborne Disqualification Physical * Letter from her mother * Medical documents from Eisenhower Army Medical Center * Supporting letter from orthopedic consultant * DD Form 214 * Separation order CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's available records show she enlisted in the Regular Army in the rank/grade of specialist/E-4 on 3 September 2013. She completed BCT/AIT and she was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 42A (Human Resources Specialist). 2. Following completion of MOS training, she was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 16th Sustainment Brigade, Kaiserslautern, Germany. 3. On 17 October 2014, she underwent a mental status evaluation. The BH provider diagnosed her with an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood. The BH provider stated the applicant: * was unfit for duty due to a personality disorder or other mental condition that does not amount to a medical disability * met medical retention requirements (i.e., did not qualify for a medical evaluation board (MEB)) * was mentally responsible and able to distinguish between right and wrong, and had the mental capacity to participate in the chapter proceeding * had never deployed to any place deemed to be of imminent danger * denied having symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder * had a diagnosis of personality disorder of significant severity that interfered with her ability to function effectively 4. On 28 October 2014, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against her under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 5-17, by reason of "Other Designated Physical or Mental Conditions" due to her diagnosis of adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood. He recommended an honorable discharge. 5. On 28 October 2014, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation notification memorandum. She indicated she understood the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects, the rights available to her, and the effect of a waiver of her rights. She also acknowledged that she had been given the opportunity to consult with counsel but she did not desire to consult with military or civilian counsel. She further acknowledged she understood that she may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions were issued to her. She elected not to submit a statement on her own behalf. 6. Subsequent to this acknowledgement, the applicant's immediate commander initiated separation action against her under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-17, by reason of other designated physical or mental conditions. Her battalion commander recommended approval with the issuance of an honorable discharge. 7. On 18 November 2014, consistent with the chain of command's recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-17, by reason of other designated physical or mental condition with an honorable discharge. The applicant was accordingly discharged on 8 January 2015. 8. Her DD Form 214 shows she was honorably discharged on 8 January 2015 under the provisions of paragraph 5-17, based on a physical condition, not a disability, with an honorable discharge. She was assigned a separation code of "JFV." This form also shows she completed 1 year, 4 months, and 15 days of active service. 9. Her available records do not contain: * A permanent physical profile * A diagnosed illness or injury that was found to have prevented her from performing the duties required of her grade or military specialty * A commander's statement that explains a relationship between an illness/injury and performance of her duties * A diagnosed condition that warranted her entry into the disability system 10. He records contain a DD Form 2808 (Report of Medical Examination) that shows she underwent a separation physical on 29 July 2014. The examiner noted her: * Pelvic fracture of the hip with groin pain * Right nose pain * Depression * Headaches 11. She submitted a statement, dated 2 April 2015, from her mother, a retired Reserve officer. She essentially states: a. Her daughter, the applicant, sustained an injury in BCT in September 2013 and after trusting her leaders and pushing through training, she did not realize that such injury was substantial and could result in other injuries. She was examined by an orthopedist while on leave and was later disqualified from attending airborne training. The marching up and down hills in Germany made things worse for her. She waited for long periods to see her primary care physician due to her concern with her pelvic fracture. Despite her physical therapy, there was no improvement and her leaders did not help her. The physician led her to believe that many females have such an injury and start having anxiety and stress related conditions. The pain spread to her groin, hip, and knee; yet, medical professionals told her she did not need to see and orthopedist. b. The stress and lack of concern by her leaders led her to see BH. She was so stressed that she was seen at the emergency room with severe headaches and a panic attack. The daily emotional and physical symptoms continued for several months. Even when an orthopedist from Fort Gordon, GA contacted a colleague at Landstuhl Army Medical Center, she was still not examined, only x-rayed. Eventually, she was told that BH suggested she be separated and her chain of command began the separation process. Given how she was treated and due to lack of support, she did not dispute or contest her separation. c. When she came home to Georgia, she was seen by an orthopedist who after examining her opined that she had a labral hip tear. He ordered an MRI, an arthrogram of her hip, and x-ray of the pelvis. The MRI and arthrogram confirmed the labral tear. The orthopedist recommended she stay on active duty for surgery and rehabilitation. She was too close to separation and despite making efforts through her last unit and/or officials at Fort Gordon, she did not get any help. d. She was also told she would receive Transitional Assistance Management Program (TAMP) benefits. The TAMP provides 180 days of transitional health care benefits to help certain service members and their families transition to civilian life. Yet, when she sought help with her medical condition, she was told she was ineligible for TAMP because her discharge was voluntary. With no health insurance, her medical expenses are increasing and TRICARE would not reimburse her. 12. She also provides a DA Form 2808, dated 3 September 2013 (enlistment physical). At the time of her enlistment in September 2013, she was assigned a PULHES of "1-1-1-1-1-1" and was qualified for enlistment in the Regular Army. An entry on this form, titled "Recommendations- Further Specialist Examination Indicated" shows she was "Airborne Qualified." However, this entry is lined through and the word "error? appears to the right and the date "24 January 2014" appears below it. Another entry to the right reads "24 January 2014, member is not qualified for airborne training at this time due to stress fracture in pelvis." 13. She also provides: a. Standard Form 600 (Health Record - Chronological Record of Medical Care), dated 31 December 2014, that shows she previously underwent an MRI of the pelvis at Landstuhl on 11 September 2014. She had a 1 year fracture with pelvic pain and inguinal region pain thought to be secondary to stress fracture. Her pain was moving to the right side from the left. She underwent a standard unenhanced MRI of the pelvis. The results showed no evidence of a marrow edema, acute fracture or malalignment. The sacroiliac joints demonstrated a normal appearance and the lower lumbar spine was unremarkable. There was a small focus of high T-2 signal immediately anterior to the right hip joint of uncertain clinical significance or etiology. It could represent a small amount of joint fluid. The visualized tendons and soft tissue of the hips and pelvis were grossly unremarkable. There was no MRI evidence of a stress fracture. b. Radiological Examination Report, dated 21 January 2015 that shows she presented to the Radiology Department at Eisenhower Army Medical Center on 7 January 2015 by reason of a labral tear. She underwent MRI arthrogram of the right hip. An AP view of the pelvis, both hips as well as frog-leg lateral view of both hips demonstrates bilateral inferior pubic ramus healing stress fracture. No other fractures or other abnormalities are detected at this time. c. Memorandum, dated 5 February 2015, from the Chief, Sports Medicine Surgery, Orthopedic Consultants, Eisenhower Army Medical Center. He states that he evaluated the applicant and noted she had an examination consistent with a right hip labral tear which did not get diagnosed while she was in Germany. He ordered a hip MRI with arthrogram to confirm the physical examination. She underwent the MRI on 31 December 2014 and the MRI was consistent with the physical examination that confirmed the labral tear. She was separated on 7 December 2015 prior to him being able to perform surgery given she had failed non-operative treatment. He supports surgical fix to her right hip with a hip arthroscopy and labral repair of the right hip. She could get 70 to 90 percent return to full function after surgery and physical therapy. d. Statement from the Northern Georgia Rehabilitation Center that shows an individual saw the applicant for an evaluation for pain associated with bilateral pelvis stress fracture. During the evaluation, it became clear that she suffered from over training during basic combat and advanced individual training. She gave her guidance on flexion, squats, and other sports-related stretches/yoga. REFERENCES: 1. AR 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Commanders specified in chapter 1 may approve separation under this paragraph (5-17) on the basis of other physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability (AR 635–40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation)) and excluding conditions appropriate for separation processing under paragraph 5-11 or 5-13 that potentially interfere with assignment to or performance of duty. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to chronic airsickness, chronic seasickness, enuresis, sleepwalking, dyslexia, severe nightmares, claustrophobia, transsexualism/gender transformation in accordance with AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), paragraph 3-35, and other disorders manifesting disturbances of perception, thinking, emotional control or behavior sufficiently severe that the Soldier’s ability to effectively perform military duties is significantly impaired. Soldiers with 24 months or more of active duty service may be separated under this paragraph based on a diagnosis of personality disorder. b. When a commander determines that a Soldier has a physical or mental condition that potentially interferes with assignment to or performance of duty, the commander will refer the Soldier for a medical examination and/or mental status evaluation in accordance with AR 40–501. Command-directed mental status evaluations will comply with this regulation. A recommendation for separation must be supported by documentation confirming the existence of the physical or mental condition. Separation processing may not be initiated under this paragraph until the Soldier has been counseled formally concerning deficiencies and has been afforded ample opportunity to overcome those deficiencies as reflected in appropriate counseling or personnel records. c. Paragraph 1-32 states a command-directed mental health evaluation performed in connection with separation under paragraph 5-17 will be performed by a psychiatrist, doctoral-level clinical psychologist, or doctoral-level clinical social worker with necessary and appropriate professional credentials who is privileged to conduct mental health evaluations for the Department of Defense (DOD) components. 2. AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD code to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD of "JFV" as the appropriate code to assign to enlisted Soldiers administratively discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-17, based on a physical condition, not a disability. 3. Title 10, U.S. Code, 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 is responsible for administering the disability system and executes Secretary of the Army decision-making authority as directed by Congress in chapter 61 and in accordance with AR 635-40. c. 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 physical evaluation board is an administrative body possessing the authority to determine whether or not 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. Only the unfitting conditions or defects and those which contribute to unfitness will be considered in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity warranting retirement or separation for disability. 4. AR 40-501 governs medical fitness standards for enlistment; induction; appointment, including officer procurement programs; retention; and separation, including retirement. Chapter 3 gives the various medical conditions and physical defects which may render a Soldier unfit for further military service and which fall below the standards required for the individuals in paragraph 3-2. These medical conditions and physical defects, individually or in combination, are those that significantly limit or interfere with the Soldier’s performance of their duties or may compromise or aggravate the Soldier’s health or well-being if they were to remain in the military Service. 5. Department of Defense Instruction 1332.14 (Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES)), dated August 2014, establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides procedures for referral, evaluation, return to duty, separation, or retirement of Service members for disability in accordance with Title 10, United States Code. a. The IDES is the joint DOD-VA process by which DOD determines whether wounded, ill, or injured service members are fit for continued military service and by which DOD and the VA determine appropriate benefits for service members who are separated or retired for a service-connected disability. The IDES features a single set of disability medical examinations appropriate for fitness determination by the Military Departments and a single set of disability ratings provided by the VA for appropriate use by both departments. Although the IDES includes medical examinations, IDES processes are administrative in nature and are independent of clinical care and treatment. b. IDES medical examinations will include a general medical examination and any other applicable medical examinations performed to VA compensation and pension standards. Collectively, the examinations will be sufficient to assess the member’s referred and claimed condition(s) and assist the VA in ratings determinations and assist military departments with unfit determinations. 6. According to the official TRICARE website, the TAMP is a TRICARE program that provides 180 days of transitional health care benefits to help certain service members and their families, transition to civilian life. The member and his/her eligible family members may be covered for health care benefits under TAMP if they are involuntarily separated from active duty under honorable conditions. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation. The BH provider diagnosed her with an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood. The BH provider stated she was unfit for duty due to a personality disorder or other mental condition that does not amount to a medical disability, met medical retention requirements (i.e., does not qualify for an MEB), and she was mentally responsible and able to distinguish between right and wrong, and had the mental capacity to participate in the chapter proceeding. Her diagnosis of personality disorder was of significant severity and interfered with her ability to function effectively. Accordingly, her chain of command initiated separation action against her. 2. Her narrative reason for separation was assigned based on the fact that she was separated under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-17, due to a medical condition - not a disability. Absent this condition, there was no fundamental reason to process the applicant for discharge. The only valid narrative reason for separation permitted under this paragraph is "Condition - Not a Disability" and the appropriate separation code associated with this discharge is "JFV." 3. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Her narrative reason for separation is correctly shown on her DD Form 214. However, while her BH condition did not amount to a disability, her physical condition remains problematic. a. She entered active duty on 3 September 2013. She took a physical that cleared her for active duty and airborne training. It is clear that she was injured during BCT/AIT. She appears to have sustained a stress fracture of the pelvis. Despite this injury and subsequent disqualification from airborne training, the Army reassigned her to Germany. Her pain continued and appears to have affected her mental status and stress level. b. It appears her chain of command interpreted her pain as a condition that potentially interfered with her assignment or performance of her duties. It also appears that despite her physical pain, her chain of command elected to administratively separate her under paragraph 5-17 of AR 635-200. c. When she left Germany and arrived at Fort Gordon, GA, apparently on transition leave, she was x-rayed, scanned, and evaluated by Army doctors/ radiologists. The orthopedist who examined her opined that she had a labral hip tear and ordered an MRI, an arthrogram of her hip, and x-ray of the pelvis. The MRI and arthrogram confirmed the labral tear. d. A week after she was separated, the Chief, Sports Medicine Surgery, Orthopedic Consultants, Eisenhower Army Medical Center confirmed that he evaluated her (while she was still on active duty) and noted she had an examination consistent with a right hip labral tear which did not get diagnosed while she was in Germany. He ordered a hip MRI with arthrogram to confirm the physical examination. She underwent the MRI on 31 December 2014 and the MRI was consistent with the physical examination that confirmed the labral tear. She was separated prior to him being able to perform surgery given she had failed non-operative treatment. e. Other than her separation physical and what she provided, there are no service treatment records available for review to validate the diagnosis of labral tear in her pelvis during the applicant's military service. Although she provides some medical documentation with the condition of a labral tear, it is extremely difficult to determine without conjecture that the condition failed retention standards at the time of her separation from active duty. f. It is premature to support correction of her records to show she should have been medically separated because there is no record to show a medical board determined any medical condition failed retention standards and was unfitting (the two components required for medical separation). However, there is some indication that her condition interfered with the performance of her duties. As a matter of equity the applicant should have her records considered by an MEB to make this determination. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150011462 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150011462 14 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2