IN THE CASE OF: ` BOARD DATE: 21 September 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190006578 APPLICANT REQUESTS: in effect, reconsideration of her previous request for correction of her uncharacterized discharge to honorable. 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) * Letter, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), dated 16 April 2019 REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. 2. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, set policies, standards, and procedures to insure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Soldiers for a variety of reasons. a. Paragraph 5-1 (Characterization of Service or Description of Separation) stated unless the reason for separation requires a specific characterization, a Soldier being separated for the convenience of the Government will be awarded a character of service of honorable, under honorable conditions, or uncharacterized description of service if in an entry-level status. No Soldier will be awarded a character of service of under honorable conditions under this chapter for Soldiers separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-11 (Separation of Personnel Who Did Not Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standards). b. Paragraph 5-11 stated Soldiers who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment or who became medically disqualified under these standards prior to entry on active duty or active duty training for initial entry training will be separated. c. Medical proceedings, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate military medical authority within 6 months of the Soldier's initial entrance on active duty. 3. Title 38, U.S. Code, section 1110 (General – Basic Entitlement), provides that for disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service during a period of war, the United States will pay to any veteran thus disabled and who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable from the period of service in which said injury or disease was incurred or preexisting injury or disease was aggravated, compensation as provided in this subchapter, but no compensation shall be paid if the disability is a result of the veteran's own willful misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs. 4. Title 38, U.S. Code, section 1131 (Peacetime Disability Compensation – Basic Entitlement), provides that for disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service during other than a period of war, the United States will pay to any veteran thus disabled and who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable from the period of service in which said injury or disease was incurred or preexisting injury or disease was aggravated, compensation as provided in this subchapter, but no compensation shall be paid if the disability is a result of the veteran's own willful misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs. FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR20160004433 on 14 November 2017. 2. The applicant states she was discharged due to a service-connected disability for which she is currently being compensated at 80 percent. 3. She enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 August 1998. 4. Her DA Form 4707-C (Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) Proceedings), dated 21 October 1998, states: a. History of Present Illness: The applicant is an 18-year-old female basic trainee who was able to complete her second week of basic training and then, because of problems with knee pain and bilateral wrist pain, she was released from training. She has been followed in occupational therapy for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome that was aggravated with pushups. She has been followed and treated with splints as well as occupational therapy and has noted improvement in her symptoms. She also complains of persistent left knee pain, which she has had since her arrival at basic training. She is unable to put weight directly onto her knee when kneeling on her left knee. This is painful with running activities. b. Physical Examination: The examination of her upper extremities reveals no atrophy of her intrinsic or thenar (ball of the thumb) or hypothenar musculature (a group of four short muscles found on the ulnar side of the palm). She has 5/5 pinch and opposition with her thumb and small finger. She has an equivocal Tinel's (a way to detect irritated nerves). Her two-point is documented in occupational therapy as 3 millimeters or less, which is well within normal limits. The examination of her left knee reveals a tender tibial tubercle (a large oblong elevation on the anterior aspect of the tibia) that is well localized and prominent. c. X-Ray Data: Her radiographs are consistent with Osgood-Schlatter's apophysitis of her tibial tubercle (a disease which causes pain in the front lower part of the knee with inflammation of the patellar ligament.) d. Diagnosis: (1) bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, traumatic, resolving, and (2) left knee Osgood-Schlatter's disease, existed prior to service. e. Recommendation: At this time, the applicant has a condition which is likely to preclude successful completion of training. She does not meet the requirements of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), paragraph 2-10c(6). f. The medical approving authority approved the findings of the board and forwarded the EPSBD to the applicant's commander for disposition. 5. On 27 October 1998, she was counseled by her immediate commander who informed her of the medical findings of the EPSBD. a. She acknowledged that she was informed of the medical findings. She also acknowledged she understood that legal advice of an attorney employed by the Army was available to her and that she could consult with civilian counsel at her own expense. She further acknowledged she understood she could request discharge from the Army without delay or request retention on active duty. The applicant concurred with the proceedings and requested discharge from the Army without delay. b. Her unit commander recommended her separation. On 29 October 1998, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation from the Army. 6. Headquarters, U.S. Army Engineering Center and, Orders , dated 4 November 1998, discharged her effective 5 November 1998. 7. She was discharged on 5 November 1998. She completed 2 months and 24 days of net active service. Her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows in: * item 24 (Character of Service) – Uncharacterized * item 25 (Separation Authority) – Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11 * item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – Failure to Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standards 8. On 14 November 2017, the ABCMR denied her request for correction of her character of service from uncharacterized to honorable. The Board determined: a. According to accepted medical principles, the manifestation of a chronic disease from the date of entry into active military service (or so close to that date of entry that the disease could not have started in so short of a period) is accepted as proof the disease existed prior to entrance into active military service. b. The evidence of record shows medical authorities determined she suffered from a disqualifying medical condition that existed prior to service and which was discovered shortly after reporting to active duty. c. She was counseled and advised of her rights, and she elected a discharge from the Army without delay. Her rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. She was separated accordingly with an uncharacterized discharge. d. A member's service is under review during the first 180 days of continuous active military service. When separated within the first 180 days, service is usually not characterized unless the circumstances of the separation warrant an honorable characterization. An uncharacterized discharge is neither positive nor negative; it is not derogatory. It simply means the Soldier did not serve on active duty long enough for his or her service to be rated. e. A medical review of her case by Army Review Boards Agency Senior Medical Advisor determined she did not meet medical accession standards for Osgood- Schlatter's disease at the time of her service; this condition was considered to exist prior to service. He found no evidence of a medical disability or condition that would support a change to the character or reason for her discharge in this case. f. Operating under different laws and their own policies, the VA does not have the authority or the responsibility for determining medical unfitness for military service. The VA may award ratings because a medical condition is related to service (service connected) and affects the individual's civilian employability. 9. The letter from the VA, dated 16 April 2019, provided a summary of her current benefits and shows her combined service-connected disability evaluation as 80 percent. 10. The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge, which disqualify the Soldier from further military service. The Army disability rating is to compensate the individual for the loss of a military career. The VA does not have authority or responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service. The VA may compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability. 11. 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 an error or injustice on the part of the Army. 12. Title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, Part IV, is the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. The VA awards disability ratings to veterans for service-connected conditions, including those conditions detected after discharge. As a result, the VA, operating under different policies, may award a disability rating where the Army did not find the member to be unfit to perform his duties. Unlike the Army, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After review of the application and all evidence, including the applicant’s statement and the ARBA Medical Advisory Opinion, the Board determined there is insufficient evidence to grant relief. The applicant attended BCT and was on active duty for two months and 24 days before separating. The governing regulation provides that a separation will be described as an entry-level separation, with service uncharacterized, if the separation action is initiated within the first 180 days of service, while a Soldier is in entry-level status. The applicant underwent an Entrance Physical Standards Board on 21 October 1998, while in BCT. The Board determined the applicant’s knee condition failed standards of medical fitness and had existed prior to service. Therefore, the ABCMR found that the applicant’s DD Form 214 properly shows her service as uncharacterized. 2. An uncharacterized discharge is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier’s military service. It merely means the Soldier has not been in the Army long enough for his or her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise. As a result, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. 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. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20190006578 7 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1