2wq2ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 May 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160013251 APPLICANT REQUESTS: a change to her narrative reason for separation from unsatisfactory performance to a medical discharge. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 293 ( Application for the Review of Discharge From the Armed Forces of the United States) * FLW (Fort Leonard Wood) Form 576 (Trainee Sick Call Slip) * Excerpts from her Medical Record FACTS: 1. The applicant states that she was discharged due to a service related injury acquired while in training that prevented her from completing training. 2. The applicant provides: a. FLW form 576 that shows she was in her 11th week of training where she complained of pain in her right hip, some numbness, a sharp shooting pain down her right leg, and mild anemia. The recommendation to her commander was for her to have 7 days of no running or jumping and 7 days of crutches used to go no further than a half a mile. b. Excerpts from her medical record that document trochanteric bursitis on her right hip. The medical assessment reflected patient had signs and symptoms consistent with trochanteric regional pain syndrome on her right side. 3. A review of the applicants’ service record shows: a. She enlisted into the Regular Army on 28 September 2015. She was assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, MO for training. b. On 29 January 2016, the FLW form reflects the applicant went to sick call for right thigh pain and mild anemia. a. c. Between November 2015 and January 2016, she was repeatedly counseled for various infractions including: * failure to follow instructions * failure to complete mandatory training, the 8 mile foot march * missing the 12 mile foot march and the Army Physical Fitness Test * missing multiple training events * missing training (9 events in the past 11 weeks); due to all of the missed training and inability to train, she was recommended for New Start Program d. On 22 March 2016, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation. e. On 19 April, 2016, the applicant’s company commander notified her that he intended to initiate separation action against her under chapter 13 of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) for unsatisfactory performance with an honorable characterization of service. f. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the her commanders notice on 19 April 2016. She indicated that before completing her election of rights, she was afforded the opportunity to consult with appointed counsel for consultation, or military counsel of her own choice, if they were reasonably available; or civilian counsel at her own expense. She chose to decline this opportunity. She completed: * a signed statement that says she did not wish to remain in the military * a signed statement that states she was not a victim of sexual assault for which an unrestricted report was filed within the past 24 months g. On 19 April 2016, the commander initiated separation action against her under chapter 13 of AR 635-200. The chain of command concurred with his recommendation to separate her under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance. h. Consistent with the chain of commands’ recommendation, the separation authority approved the commanders request for the applicant’s separation under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13, and directed the issuance of an honorable discharge. i. Her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that she was discharged on 26 April 2016, under AR 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance and she received an honorable character of service. The applicant had 6 months and 29 days of active service with no lost time. She was authorized or awarded the National Defense Service Medal. a. 4. By regulation (AR 635-200), commanders will separate a Soldier for unsatisfactory performance when it is clearly established that, in the commander’s judgement, the Soldier will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. 5. The senior medical advisor for the Army Review Board Agency provided a medical advisory opinion on 16 January 2016, which determined the following: a. A review of the available documentation found no evidence of a medical disability or condition that would support a change to the character and/or reason for the discharge in this case. b. The applicant had multiple medical conditions, including several EPTS (existed prior to service) conditions. The applicant did not reach a MRDP (medical retention determination point) for any of her medical or orthopedic conditions. The applicant was unable to successfully complete OSUT (one station unit training), i.e. BCT/A/T (basic combat training/advanced individual training), mandatory training and graduation requirements. c. There was no clear indication for disability evaluation system (DES) processing in this applicant, i.e. no indication for MEB/PEB (medical evaluation board/physical evaluation board). d. The applicant could have been processed for separation shortly after entry onto active duty via an EPSBD (Entrance Physical Standards Board) for the EPTS hypertension, EPTS iron deficiency anemia, and EPTS irregular/abnormal menses, i.e. for failure to meet procurement medical standards. e. The Army has neither the role nor the authority to compensate for progression or complications of service-connected conditions after separation. Congress grants that role and authority to the Department of Veterans Affairs, operating under a different set of laws. 6. On 23 January 2019, the applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion and given an opportunity to respond. She did not respond. 7. By regulation, AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army Disability Evaluation System (DES) and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply 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. 1. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board determined that relief was not warranted. Based upon the pattern of misconduct and the medical advisory finding that no evidence of a medical disability or condition that would support a change to the character and/or reason for the discharge, the Board concluded that the narrative reason currently depicted on the applicant’s DD Form 214 accurately reflects the circumstances and conditions leading to the administrative separation. For that reason, the Board recommended denying the applicant’s request for relief. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING X X X DENY APPLICATION 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. 1535874 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. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a (Honorable discharge) states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. b. Paragraph 3-7b (General discharge) states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. Paragraph 13-1 states that a Soldier may be separated per this chapter when it is determined that he/she is unqualified for further military service because of unsatisfactory performance. Commanders will separate a Soldier for unsatisfactory performance when it is clearly established that, in the commander’s judgement, the Soldier will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. 2. AR 635-40, establishes the Army Disability Evaluation System (DES) and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply 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. It provides for medical evaluation boards, which are convened to document a Soldier's medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by the Soldier's status. A decision is made as to the Soldier's medical qualifications for retention based on the criteria prescribed in AR 40-501, which governs medical fitness standards for enlistment; induction; appointment, including officer procurement programs; retention; and separation, including retirement. 3. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-martial. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court- martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief based on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, 1. external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization.