BOARD DATE: 4 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017854 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: 4 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017854 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: 4 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017854 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 service records to show she was medically discharged. 2. The applicant states that, as a veteran, she has encountered some illness related to active service. These illnesses are not allowing her to continue to serve in the Armed Forces. 3. The applicant provides copies of medical and personnel records. 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. A Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination) completed by an examining physician on 1 February 1995 documented the applicant's Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) scholarship medical examination to show she was qualified. 3. A Standard Form 93 (Report of Medical History) completed by the applicant and her medical officer on 13 February 1995 as part of the applicant’s ROTC scholarship shows in: * item 8 (Statement of Examinee's Present Health and Medications Currently Used) – "I’m in good health" * item 25 (Physician’s Summary and Elaboration of all Pertinent Data) – * sleepwalking when she is nervous or concerned * the last time she sleep-walked was one year ago, she can’t recall why she was concerned at the time * myopia – wears glasses – corrects to 20/20 4. The applicant enlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) as a cadet on 11 October 1995. 5. An SF 88, completed by an examining physician on 7 May 1996 to document the applicant's qualification for basic camp advanced course and appointment medical examination, shows the applicant qualified for assignment to combat arms. 6. An SF 93, completed by the applicant in June 1996 as part of her appointment medical examination, shows she was in good health, had been a sleepwalker, had eye trouble, and wore glasses. 7. A DD Form 2246 (Applicant Medical Prescreening Form) completed on 1 April 1998 shows the applicant marked “Yes” for eye trouble, wears glasses, and was a sleep walker since age 12. 8. An SF 93, completed by an examining physician on 6 April 1998 to document the applicant's ROTC medical examination, shows the applicant marked “Yes” for wears glasses or contacts, had been a sleep walker, and had been treated for a cyst. 9. An SF 88, completed by the examining physician on 6 April 1998 to document the applicant's ROTC medical examination, shows the applicant indicated she experienced sleepwalking on four occasions after the age of 12, had a cyst on her right breast removed at age 20, and she was not medically qualified for ROTC. 10. On 9 July 1998, the Cadet Command surgeon found the applicant’s medical condition for sleepwalking medically disqualifying. However, a waiver was granted for retention, appointment, and Airborne/Ranger training when otherwise qualified. 11. First Region (ROTC), University of Puerto Rico, Orders 230-1, dated 18 August 1998, discharged the applicant from the USAR to accept a commission in the United States Armed Forces, effective 20 August 1998. 12. A DD Form 214 shows the applicant entered active duty on 25 August 1998; was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), paragraph 2-7, on 25 August 2001; and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) to complete her Reserve obligation. She had completed 3 years and 1 day of net active service this period. 13. USAR Personnel Command Orders C-09-224156 released the applicant from USAR Control Group and assigned her to a unit effective 19 September 2002. 14. Headquarters, 108th Division, Orders 04-182-00008 reassigned the applicant to 223rd Transportation Company effective 30 June 2004. 15. The applicant was ordered to active duty on 6 July 2004 in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq). 16. A DD Form 214 shows the applicant entered active duty on 6 July 2004, and she was honorably REFRAD on 17 February 2006. She had completed 1 year, 7 months, and 12 days of net active service this period. 17. Human Resources Command Orders A-08-516533 show the applicant reported to the Medical Retention Center, Fort Drum, NY, on 28 July 2005 to participate in the Reserve Component medical holdover program. She was released from the program on 17 February 2006. 18. The applicant was ordered to active duty on 14 September 2007 in support of Operation Enduring Freedom (Other Than Homeland). 19. A DD Form 214 shows the applicant entered active duty on 14 September 2007 and she was honorably REFRAD on 7 October 2008. She had completed 1 year and 24 days of net active service this period. 20. A review of the applicant's military service records failed to reveal evidence that she was referred to a Medical Evaluation Board or a Physical Evaluation Board during the period of service under review. 21. In support of her application the applicant provides copies of more than 200 pages of medical and personnel records that show, in pertinent part, the treatment she received for her medical conditions during the period 1 February 1995 to 7 October 2008. These medical records are summarized below by the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) senior medical advisor. 22. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the ARBA medical staff, dated 13 September 2016. a. The ARBA senior medical advisor stated that a review of the applicant's electronic medical record (AHLTA) revealed only five encounters. * 19 August 2004 - Udairi TMC - lightheadedness/fainting, probably vasovagal; no evidence of dehydration, infection, dysrhythmia * 14 July 2007 - MACH - Dermatitis/rash x 2 days treated with hydrocortisone cream, and headache (tension type) treated with Naprosyn & Flexeril * 19 September 2007 - MAMC Gynecology - SRP PAP * 14 May 2009 - POM Gynecology - Annual PAP * 16 May 2008 - POM Immunization - vaccination * there were no radiology studies * Nine lab tests were unremarkable or negative (1) The senior medical advisor noted that there were no radiology studies. Nine lab tests were unremarkable or negative or normal. (2) A copy of the Service Treatment Records (medical and dental) were provided by the applicant with the request. Visit to Family Practice at WAMC (Womack, Fayetteville NC) on 27 February 2001 with impression of depression, r/o physical etiology with history of always feeling tired after 8 hours of sleep, hair loss x or > 1 month. This was the only clinical note/encounter found with a behavioral health problem (depression). Normal screening labs. Prior visit on 12 February 2001 for viral gastroenteritis and workup-r/o thyroid disease. (3) Inpatient treatment record for intrauterine pregnancy from 29 September through 1 October 2000. (4) Cadet Action request dated 10 June 1998 for medication condition (sleep walking - asymptomatic since 12 years old, last in 1994), disqualifying, however a waiver was granted for retention, appointment, and other training where otherwise qualified. b. A limited review of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) records through the JLV (Joint Legacy Viewer) with problem listed diagnoses (no VA records, VA Rating Decision or other VA clinical notes provided by applicant shows a 25 item list of problems. c. The senior medical advisor noted the applicant met medical retention standards in accordance with (IAW) chapter 3, AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), and following the provisions set forth in AR 635-40 (Personnel Separations) that were applicable to the applicant's era of service. Her medical conditions were duly considered during medical separation processing. No evidence was provided of unfitting medical conditions at the time of active duty service. d. The senior medical advisor concluded that a review of the available documentation found no evidence of a medical disability or condition which would support a change to the character or reason for the discharge in this case. 23. On 14 September 2016, the applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion to allow her the opportunity (30 days) to submit comments or a rebuttal. She did not respond. REFERENCES: 1. AR 40-501 provides information on medical fitness standards for induction, enlistment, appointment, retention, and related policies and procedures. 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 individual Soldier. 2. AR 635-40 sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. 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. Separation by reason of disability requires processing through the disability evaluation system. Chapter 3 (Policies) shows that 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. 3. Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permit the VA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service. However, an award of a VA rating does not establish error or injustice on the part of the Army. The VA, which has neither the authority nor the responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service, awards disability ratings to veterans for conditions that it determines were incurred during military service and subsequently affect the individual's civilian employability. Furthermore, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings. The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge, thus compensating the individual for loss of a career; while the VA (and some other government agencies) may rate any service-connected impairment, including those that are detected after discharge, in order to compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends that her military service records should be corrected to show she was medically discharged based on an unfitting medical condition. 2. The applicant met medical retention standards IAW Chapter 3, AR 40-501, and following the provisions set forth in AR 635-40 that were applicable to the applicant's era of service. Her medical conditions were duly considered during separation processing. The medical advisor found no evidence of unfitting medical conditions that would support a correction of her records. 3. The applicant is advised that both the statutory and regulatory guidance provide that the Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting that were incurred or aggravated during the period of service. The VA, on the other hand, provides compensation for disabilities which it determines were incurred in or aggravated by active military service, including those that are detected after discharge, and which impair the individual's industrial or social functioning. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150017854 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150017854 6 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2