ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 August 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190013651 APPLICANT REQUESTS: in effect, correction to block 24 (Character of Service) on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show an honorable character of service instead of uncharacterized. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Department of Veterans Affairs benefits letter dated 4 September 2019 FACTS: 1. The applicant underwent an entrance physical examination prior to her entrance onto active duty on 3 August 2015. She completed DD Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History) indicating she had no medical conditions or physical limitations that would prevent her medical disqualification from entry into the Armed Forces. A medical doctor reviewed her medical history form with her. Subsequent to reviewing her medical history form, the medical doctor conducted a physical examination recording his assessment on her DD Form 2808 (Report of Medical Examination). The medical doctor noted her heart had an asymptomatic heart murmur, she had pes planus which was moderate and asymptomatic, she required glasses to correct her vision, and she had dermatitis. Her significant or disqualifying defect was she was allergic to peanuts. At that time, based on her preliminary findings, the applicant was not medically qualified for military service. 2. On 5 October 2015 medical administrators sent the applicant a letter informing her of her initial medical examination findings and that she required further specialist examinations. She was evaluated by a cardiologist who determined her heart functioned normally after various tests including an echocardiogram and electrocardiogram. She was also evaluated by an allergist who confirmed she tested positive for a peanut allergy. She also had had a rash since childhood and the medical examiners were still waiting for the results of tests and her childhood records. 3. On 20 January 2016 a medical doctor reviewed her DD Form 2808 and supporting evidence indicating her skin rash still required assessment. He stated she still needed to submit all her treatment records pertaining to her rash. 4. On 10 February 2016 a medical doctor again reviewed her DD Form 2808 and supporting evidence indicating the allergist’s reports were received, but the medical staff was stilling waiting for the applicant to provide her medical records concerning her rash. 5. On 21 September 2016 an entry on her DD Form 2808 indicates she saw a dermatologist who stated at the time of his medical evaluation the applicant did not have a rash. 6. On 4 October 2016 an annotation was entered on her DD Form 2808 wherein the medical staff was still waiting for her personal medical records so they could further assess her skin rash history. Later in October 2016, annotations show she had no history of eczema. On 20 October 2016 she received a physical profile of three for her overall physical stamina and a request for a medical waiver was submitted to authorities. 7. On 19 November 2016, a medical waiver for her enlistment into the Regular Army was granted by authorities at the U.S. Army Recruiting Command. 8. On 6 February 2017, she underwent another medical examination verifying the data on her DD Form 2808 and ensuring she had not developed a new medical condition that would impact her ability to meet the medical procurement standards of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 2. 9. On 6 February 2017 the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army reporting to Fort Jackson, SC, for her initial entry training. 10. Her record contains DA Forms 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form) showing she was counseled as follows: * on 13 February 2017, drill sergeant counseling for her initial entry training personal security standards for valuables, currency, equipment and clothing * on 15 February 2017, drill sergeant counseling for failing first assessment of the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) * on 18 February 2017, drill sergeant counseling for failure to show reasonable effort during foot march (she fell out of march); he acknowledged she had a physical profile * on 19 February 2017, drill sergeant counseling because she failed her first weapons immersion test * on 20 February 2017, drill sergeant counseling because she failed her second weapons immersion test * on 21 February 2017, drill sergeant informed her she failed her first APFT because she did not meet the minimum standards * on 24 March 2017, platoon sergeant notified she was being considered for separation from the Regular Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635- 200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 5-17 (Other designated physical or mental conditions) * on 28 March 2017, company commander counseling notifying her she was being considered for administrative separation 11. On 23 March 2017, a Medical Service Corps officer with a doctorate of physical therapy prepared a memorandum advising the applicant’s company commander she should be considered for administrative separation under the provisions of paragraph 5- 17, Army Regulation 635-200. The applicant had a right talus (bottom part of the ankle joint) stress fracture as a result of normal physical activities required in training (marching, running, and jumping). The stress fracture diagnosis was confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging. The physical therapist stated the applicant needed more time to heal and develop improved tolerance for impact activities through a progressive strengthening and reconditioning program before she would be able to tolerate the stresses of initial military training. She concluded her memorandum by stating the applicant did not meet the criteria for a medical board nor did her records show she had a medical condition existing prior to service. 12. The applicant’s company commander notified her by memorandum that she was initiating action to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17, for other designated mental or physical conditions. Her commander stated she had a diagnosis of right talus injury (stress fracture) and her physical therapist recommended administratively separating her. She advised the applicant of her rights: * to consult with military counsel or a civilian counsel at his personal expense * to submit written statements * to obtain copies of all documents sent to the separation authority * to waive the aforementioned rights in writing 13. On 6 April 2017, the applicant acknowledged receiving her company commander’s memorandum informing her action was being contemplated to separate her prior to her expiration of term of service date. She sought military defense counsel. In writing she acknowledged she understood the basis for the contemplated action to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17, for other designated mental or physical conditions and its effect on her. She declined to submit a written statement. Both the applicant and counsel signed and dated the statement. 14. After consulting with counsel, the applicant’s commander prepared a memorandum for her superiors recommending the applicant’s separation from the U.S. Army prior to the expiration of her term of service due to right talus stress fracture which significantly limited her ability to train. 15. On 11 April 2017, the separation authority approved the company commander’s recommendation to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17, for other designated mental or physical conditions. 16. On 13 April 2017, personnel at Fort Jackson issued Orders 103-1303 discharging the applicant effective 17 April 2017. 17. On 17 April 2017 the applicant was discharged and issued a DD Form 214 documenting her net active service of 2 months and 12 days (less than 180 days of active service). Her DD Form 214 contains the following pertinent information: * Block 23 (Type of Separation) – discharge * Block 24 (Character of Service) – uncharacterized * Block 25 (Separation Authority) – Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17 * Block 26 (Separation Code) – JFV * Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – condition, not a disability 18. In support of her application she provided a VA benefits letter dated 4 September 2019 showing the VA determined her period of service from 6 February through 17 April 2017 was under honorable conditions. She has a service-connected disability evaluated at 10 percent and is in receipt of VA compensation. 19. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-17 provides for the separation of Soldiers on the basis of other physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) that potentially interfere with assignment to or performance of duty. Unless the reason for separation requires a specific characterization, a Soldier being separated for the convenience of the Government will be awarded an uncharacterized description of service if in entry level status. An entry level status is defined as the first 180 days of creditable continuous active duty. A separation will be described as an entry level separation with service uncharacterized (Block 24 of DD Form 214). 20. Based on the applicant's contention the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) medical staff provided a medical review. See "MEDICAL REVIEW" section below. MEDICAL REVIEW: 1. The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor was asked to review this case. Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s ABCMR application and accompanying documentation, the military electronic medical record (AHLTA), the VA electronic medical record (JLV), the Medical Electronic Data Care History and Readiness Tracking (MEDCHART) application, and the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS). The ARBA Medical Advisor made the following findings and recommendations. 2. Her pre-entrance medical history and physical examination completed in August 2015 show the applicant had no health issues. Electronic health records show radiographs of her right leg obtained on 17 March 2017 for shin pain were normal. A bone scan obtained on 21 March 2017 revealed multiple stress related changes. 3. In a memorandum from her treating physical therapist to her commander, the physical therapist wrote, “Because this injury is a factor of overuse, loading, and impact, separation from the military will be in the Army's and the Soldier's best interest at this time. This Soldier needs more time to heal and then develop improved tolerance for impact related activity through a progressive strengthening and reconditioning program to be able to tolerate the stresses of Initial Military Training. For the same reasons as stated above, this Soldier is not a WTRP candidate and does not meet criteria for an EPTS separation or a Medical Evaluation Board. I therefore recommend they receive a Chapter 5-17 separation or other administrative separation.” 4. It is unclear why the applicant was not a candidate for the Warrior Training and Rehabilitation Program, or WTRP. The WTRP provides a modified basic combat training (BCT) and/or one station unit training (OSUT) environment designed to return Soldiers to regular initial military training programs with higher levels of motivation, fitness, training and education than when they entered, while providing them the quality health care they need to rehabilitate their injuries. 5. Her command followed the therapist’s misguided recommendation and proceeded to inappropriately process the applicant for a chapter 5-17 discharge. There is no indication the applicant was afforded the opportunity to heal her injuries or to accomplish what was suggested in the physical therapist’s memorandum. Her bone scan was obtained on 21 March 2017. The company commander failed to date her notification memorandum to the applicant in which she stated she was recommending her for separation under provisions in chapter 5-17 of AR 635-200. 6. However, the applicant acknowledged this recommendation on 6 April 2017, which was only 17 days after her bone scan performed. These 17 days were clearly not an “ample opportunity” in which her stress injuries could heal and she could “overcome those deficiencies” by, as the physical therapist noted, developing “improved tolerance for impact related activity through a progressive strengthening and reconditioning program.” The battalion commander moved this errant discharge forward and approved her separation on 10 April 2017. This was in turn was promulgated by the Commander, United States Army Training Center and Fort Jackson, on 11 April 2017. In this case, these errors did not result in a materially different outcome for the applicant. 7. The electronic health records show that the applicant was seen on multiple occasions in March 2017 for dyspnea (shortness of breath). Pulmonary function tests obtained on 20 March 2017 were positive for asthma. The provider who saw her later that day wrote, “SIT [Soldier in training] in BCT [basic combat training], week 6, having difficulty with shortness of breath with exertion and admits to having asthma and using inhaler to around age 14 years. SIT states that in addition to exertion she experiences nocturnal coughing and wheezing. SIT underwent a pulmonary function test with methacholine challenge and was found to have result consistent with asthma. SIT states that her symptoms are such as to preclude her from completing Army training obligations and would be unable to deploy ... Moderate persistent asthma with (acute) exacerbation: EPTS IAW AR 40-501 chapter 2-23 d.” 8. It is the opinion of the ARBA Medical Advisor neither an upgrade of her discharge nor a referral of her case to the DES is warranted. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief is not warranted. 2. The Board concurred with the conclusion of the ARBA Medical Advisor that the applicant's medical records support the type of discharge she received. Further, the Board agreed that because the applicant was in an entry-level status when she was discharged, her service was properly uncharacterized. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined the applicant's uncharacterized service is not in error or unjust. 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. 9/18/2020 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. 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 regulation provides that 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 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-17 provides for the separation of Soldiers on the basis of other physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) that potentially interfere with assignment to or performance of duty. When a commander determines 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 evaluation and/or a mental status examination in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standard of Medical Fitness). Additionally, when a medical provider recommends administrative separation the chain of command will initiate administrative separation. A recommendation for separation must be supported by documentation confirming the existence of a physical condition. A Soldier must be formally counselled before initiating separation action under the provisions of this paragraph. In addition, the standard notification procedure found in Army Regulation 635-200 must be followed. Unless the reason for separation requires a specific characterization, a Soldier being separated for the convenience of the Government will be awarded an uncharacterized description of service if in entry level status. An entry level status is defined as the first 180 days of creditable continuous active duty. A separation will be described as an entry level separation with service uncharacterized (Block 24 of DD Form 214). 3. Army Regulation 635-8 (Separation Processing and Documents) prescribes policy and procedural guidance relating to transition management. It consolidated the policies, principles of support, and standards of service regarding processing personnel for transition. The DD Form 214 is a summary of the Soldier’s most recent period of continuous active duty. It provides a brief, clear-cut record of all current active, prior action, and prior inactive duty service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge. The DD Form 214 is not intended to have any legal effect on terminations of a Soldier’s service. When separation is ordered, the separation approval document must be present for transition processing these included the Enlisted Record Brief or Officer Record Brief, separation approval documents, separation orders and any other document authorized for filing in the personnel records. a. Block 24 (Characterization of Service) states the characterization or description of service is determined by the directive authorizing separation and applicable regulations. b. For Block 25 (Separation Authority) obtain the correct entry from the regulatory directives authorizing separation. c. For Block 26 (Separation Code) obtain the correct entry from Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes), which provides the corresponding SPD code for the regulatory authority and reason for separation. d. For Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) it is based on the regulatory or other authority and can be checked against the cross reference tables in Army Regulation 635-5-1. //NOTHING FOLLOWS//