IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 February 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20200003384 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * In effect, remove "Entry Level Performance and Conduct" from item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Permission to personally appear before the Board APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 293 (Application for the Army Discharge Review Board) * DD Form 214 * Moncrief CMHS Form 10-R (Self-Referral for Mental Health Evaluation) * Civilian hospital bill * Standard Form (SF) 513 (Medical Record – Consultation Sheet) * DD Form 1289 (DOD (Department of Defense) Prescription * Two DA Forms 5181-R (Screening Note of Acute Medical Care) * Six FJ (Fort Jackson) Forms 689 (Fort Jackson Sick Slip) * Memorandum, Subject: Soldier's Records and ID (identification) Card FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10 (Armed Forces), United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b) (Correction of Military Records: Claims Incident Thereto). However, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states, in effect, her narrative reason for separation is wrong; it currently states, "Entry Level Performance and Conduct." The applicant maintains she was not a disciplinary problem; she graduated from basic combat training (BCT) with flying colors and was never written up for anything. She was among the top three in her class before she was removed due to an injury. Based on the foregoing, the applicant declares she does not understand why her narrative reason reads as it does; she does not believe her conduct had anything to do with her separation. The applicant provided additional arguments in a self-authored statement: a. The applicant experienced some medical problems during initial training: (1) On the first day of BCT, they rushed the applicant and the other Soldiers off the bus, and the applicant and other Soldiers were forced to run to a formation with all of their gear. As they ran, another recruit pushed past the applicant, knocking her to the ground and causing her to hit and injure her right knee on a speed bump; the applicant notes she never complained, and she subsequently graduated from BCT, despite the pain she was experiencing. The applicant further explains, because she had no proof, she opted not to report her knee pain at the time; besides, the applicant comments, the military already believed she was faking about an issue that later turned out to be a heart condition. The applicant points out, to this day, her knee still aches; she feels stabbing pains, and it is sometimes incredibly painful to walk. (2) Also during BCT, she injured her right shoulder two days before the final PT (physical training) test. She and the other Soldiers were negotiating an obstacle course called the tower; the applicant and her teammates made it up the tower just fine, but, on their way down, her battle buddies dropped her so that all of her weight was hanging on her right arm. As she hung by her arm, it felt like either her shoulder had dislocated or something had torn. Although she was in a lot of pain, she did not report her injury because she wanted to graduate BCT; she went on to pass her PT test with the help of a lot of "icy hot." (3) The applicant began to have trouble breathing during training runs in BCT, and she felt chest pains. At first, she thought it was just a "mental thing," and that, once she got into better shape, everything would be fine; unfortunately, the more strain she put on her body, the worse her issues became. b. When she entered advanced individual training (AIT), her breathing problems and chest pains only worsened. (1) One morning, as she and her unit were returning from a battalion run, the applicant collapsed. The applicant's fellow Soldiers helped her up and brought her to the formation; however, one of the Soldiers was so concerned, the Soldier told what had happened to a drill sergeant, and, as a result, the applicant was sent off to medical. For 2 weeks, the applicant underwent a lot of testing; the doctors finally sent her to a civilian hospital to have her heart tested, and the results showed she had developed a mitral valve prolapse (meaning her heart was causing her blood to flow in the wrong direction). (2) After the heart condition diagnosis, they transferred the applicant back to a military doctor, who explained the situation and told the applicant they were sending her for a mental health evaluation to see how her heart issues were affecting her. Before going to the mental health appointment, the applicant told her drill sergeant and her first sergeant (1SG) what had happened. Her drill sergeant and 1SG asked if she wanted to go home; she told them she wanted to stay because all she had ever wanted was to be a Soldier (the applicant contended there was paperwork to prove one of these conversations with her leadership). Both her drill sergeant and 1SG then tried to delay the applicant's mental health appointment until after AIT graduation. The applicant asserts her drill sergeant and 1SG did this because, unbeknownst to the applicant, they understood the Army's ulterior motive for sending the applicant home; the Army wanted to avoid documenting her medical issues. (3) The applicant ended up going to her mental health appointment in spite of her leadership's efforts; the applicant was subsequently told she would be sent home "due to bereavement issues." The applicant declares the idea of "bereavement issues" makes no sense; after all, she had made it through BCT, and, during BCT, the other Soldiers had called her "Mom" because she was always helping them handle the stress of training and being away from home. On top of that, it had been almost a year since her father had passed, and, the applicant maintains, at no time during training did her father's death cause her to break down; if anything, the thought of her father gave her strength because she knew he would have been proud of her for joining the Army and staying strong. As far as the applicant is concerned, sending her to mental health was just a tactic the Army used to make her look bad; the Army just did not want to admit the applicant's injuries were service-related. c. The applicant contends she never wanted to leave the military, and she had said so many times; nonetheless, they told her she had no choice in the matter, and that they would be sending her a holding battalion until she agreed to sign the separation paperwork. They told her all of this again when she questioned why the paperwork made her look like an unmotivated Soldier with disciplinary problems; in truth, she only got into trouble over her inability to run. She never had any issues during barracks inspections (much to the chagrin of her drill sergeant), and, even after they had initiated separation action, she continued to help her fellow Soldiers to prepare for their pre- graduation barracks inspection; the applicant rhetorically asks, does this sound like the actions of a depressed person who is unable to continue serving in the military? d. The applicant affirms she loved being in the military and being a part of something bigger than herself; she also liked the discipline and the standards to which Soldiers held themselves. Had she known she could have fought to remain on active duty, she would have done so with every ounce of strength and determination she had in her. Following her separation, the applicant experienced panic attacks for 6 months and sought therapy because she could not reconcile that she had failed; to this day, she still struggles with why she had to leave the military, and it bothers her every day because serving in the military had been her biggest dream, and her discharge caused her to lose confidence. e. The applicant contends she has big dreams now, but still feels hindered by her failure. She has never asked to be compensated for her injuries because, in her mind, her injuries resulted from her own failures; additionally, the applicant feels there are other people out there who need compensation more than she does. However, the applicant asserts she is taking action now because she has come to understand her only failing in this matter was believing the military would do what was right for both the military and the applicant; she now knows the military was only looking out for itself, and she believes the system, not any one individual, was at fault. 3. The applicant provides her DD Form 214 and the following medical documents: a. SF 513, dated 1 October 2003, prepared by the applicant's Troop Medical Clinic (TMC), which states a provisional diagnosis of systolic murmur; the form additionally shows the TMC requested the applicant undergo an echo cardiogram. An FJ Form 689, also dated 1 October 2003, indicates the TMC issued the applicant a physical profile limiting her activities until her heart murmur was evaluated. b. Civilian hospital bill reflecting the applicant's admission to the civilian hospital's cardiology clinic for an outpatient procedure on 8 October 2003. c. FJ Form 689, dated 14 October 2003, showing the TMC directed the applicant's previous physical profile be continued; on an FJ Form 689, dated 15 October 2003, the TMC stated the unit was going to command-refer the applicant to the Community Mental Health Service (CMHS) as soon as possible for an evaluation (the form provides no clear explanation as to why this evaluation was necessary). d. On 20 October 2003, an FJ Form 689 indicated the applicant had gone to the TMC for a follow-up appointment; a medical provider noted an "HCG" was needed. (An HCG (quantitative human chorionic gonadotropin) test measures the amount of HCG in the blood; HCG is a hormone produced during pregnancy). e. Moncrief CMHS Form 10-R, dated 21 October 2003, documents the applicant's self-referral for a mental health evaluation; the commander included the following comments: * The applicant appeared to get along very well with others, to include her supervisors; the applicant had stated she wanted to stay in the military, and the commander fully supported the applicant's decision * The primary reason the applicant was being referred to see a counselor was due to the applicant's heart murmur; separation proceedings were not pending at that time f. DA Form 5181-R, dated 1 November 2003, records the applicant's visit to a medical facility because of left knee pain, which the applicant reported experiencing for about 4 months; the applicant further stated the pain came from behind the knee and happened whenever she sat in one position too long, had been running, or had been standing for an extended period of time. The applicant also complained she was having sinus problems; she had a dry cough and headache. The medical personnel returned the applicant to duty after giving her Motrin and Bengay. The form further noted the HCG test results had been negative. The applicant provides two additional undated FJ Forms 689 that reflect TMC visits for left knee pain and sinus congestion. 4. The applicant's service records show: a. On 14 July 2003, the applicant enlisted into the Regular Army for 4 years; she was 25 years old. Orders assigned the applicant to Fort Jackson for initial training, and she arrived at her BCT unit on or about 18 July 2003; in or around late September 2003, the applicant transferred to her AIT unit. b. The applicant's separation packet is not available for review; however, her service record does include her DD Form 214, which shows, on 6 November 2003, she was separated with an uncharacterized character of service, based on chapter 11 (Entry Level Performance and Conduct), Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel). The applicant's DD Form 214 also shows she completed 3 months and 23 days of net active duty service, was not awarded a military occupational specialty, and received no awards or decorations. Her separation code is listed as "JGA," and her narrative reason for separation is "Entry Level Performance and Conduct." 5. AR 15-185 (ABCMR), states an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the Board; however, the request for a hearing may be authorized by a panel of the Board or by the Director of ABCMR. 6. The applicant requests the removal of the current narrative reason for separation on her DD Form 214, arguing that it inaccurately indicates she was a disciplinary problem; while she does not offer an alternative, she implies her medical issues, incurred on active duty, should instead be the basis for separation. The applicant's assertion the Army separated her simply to avoid responsibility for her medical issues suggests she may wish to have her issues recognized as disabling conditions. a. The absence of the applicant's separation packet means we are unable to determine or provide the specific circumstance(s) that led to her discharge. However, in view of the fact her service record contains her DD Form 214, which states the reason and authority for separation, the Board presumes the applicant's leadership properly completed her discharge action. The absence of the separation packet nonetheless represents an administrative irregularity; AR 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resources Records Management), then in effect, required supporting documents for an approved separation action to be maintained in the affected Soldier's official military personnel file. b. Per chapter 11, AR 635-200, commanders could initiate separation action against entry level Soldiers (i.e. those who had completed no more than 180 days of continuous active duty service) based on the following; the Soldier: * demonstrated he/she was not qualified for retention by not adapting socially or emotionally to military life; was unable to meet minimum standards for completing training due to a lack of aptitude, ability, motivation, or self- discipline; or demonstrated character or behavior incompatible with service * failed to respond to counseling, as reflected on DA Forms 4856-R (Developmental Counseling Form) c. Chapter 11 additionally required the separation of enlisted women who had become pregnant while in an entry-level status, and whom the separation authority, in conjunction with the medical officer (an obstetrician), had determined could not fully participate in required training. Soldiers separated due to pregnancy were entitled to maternity care in a military medical facility. d. Per AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designators (SPD)), in effect at the time, the narrative reason for separation was linked to the discharge authority. Soldiers separated under chapter 11 received the SPD "JGA," and their DD Forms 214 were required to show "Entry Level Performance and Conduct" as the narrative reason for separation. e. Paragraph 5-3 (Secretarial Plenary Authority), AR 635-200 stated the separation of enlisted personnel was the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army and was to be effected only by his or his designee's authority. The discharge or release of any enlisted member of the Army for the convenience of the Government will be at the Secretary’s discretion and with the type of discharge as determined by him. In the event the Board changes the applicant's separation authority to paragraph 5-3, AR 635-200, then AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) requires the amendment of the applicant's separation code to "JFF." 7. With regard to the applicant's implied request to be referred into the Army Disability Evaluation System (DES), the version of AR 40-400 (Patient Administration) that was in effect during the applicant's era of service required physicians to identify Soldiers with medical conditions that failed the medical fitness retention standards detailed in AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness). Additionally, Soldiers not meeting AR 40-501 retention standards were issued DA Forms 3349 (Physical Profile), showing a permanent profile for the failing body system, with the numerical designators of either "3" (significant limitations) or "4" (severe limitations). Soldiers with permanent "3" or "4" profiles were then referred into the DES for evaluation. Neither the applicant nor her available service record indicate the applicant was, at any point, issued a level "3" or "4" permanent physical profile for any of her medical conditions. 8. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition and her service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency guidance. 9. Based on the applicant's submission of medical documents and assertion she incurred disabling conditions while on active duty, the Army Review Board Agency medical staff provided a medical review for the Board members. See the "MEDICAL REVIEW" section." MEDICAL REVIEW: 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 electronic Physical Evaluation Board (ePEB), 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: The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting a change in the narrative reason for her 6 November 2003 uncharacterized discharge. She states: “Narrative reason for separation is wrong. I was not a disciplinary issue. I graduated basic training with flying colors. Before I was taken out of class due to injury, I was top 3 in my class. I was never written up for anything. I was never disciplined for anything. I do not understand why the narrative reason for separation reads "entry level performance and conduct." I do not believe conduct has Anything to do with my separation.” The Record of Proceedings details the applicant’s military service and the circumstances of the case. The applicant’s DD 214 shows she entered the regular Army on 14 July 2003 and was discharged on 6 November 2003 under provisions provided in chapter 11 of AR 635-200, Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel (1 November 2000), for falling below entry level performance and conduct standards. In her self-authored letter, the applicant states she injured her right knee in a fall in the parking lot on her first day in basic combat training; to have injured her right shoulder while on the obstacle course during basic combat training; and to have had “issues with my breathing and chest pain while running during basic training which got worse as training continued.” She states the latter led to the discovery of a heart condition. She claims the Army wanted do discharge her “so it didn't have to fully document my medical condition. Despite their efforts I was still sent and subsequently told I was being sent home due to bereavement issues.” There are no contemporaneous AHLTA encounters. Documentation submitted with the application shows the applicant underwent evaluation for shortness of breath and a new heart murmur in early October 2003. On 21 October 2003, her company commander, while strongly supporting his Soldier, recommended she undergo a recycle of the first four weeks of her advanced individual training because of and in order to provide for further evaluation of her heart condition. The results of this evaluation were not submitted with the application. Documentation also shows she was seen on several occasions for knee pain. Review of her AHLTA records from July 2004 through July 2007 (military dependent) shows no encounters for shortness of breath, cardiac issues, or for knee related issues. Review of her records in JLV show she has been diagnosed with mitral valve prolapse. From the Mayo Clinic’s website: “Mitral valve prolapse occurs when the flaps (leaflets) of the heart's mitral valve bulge (prolapse) like a parachute into the heart's left upper chamber (left atrium) as the heart contracts. Although mitral valve prolapse is usually a lifelong disorder, many people with this condition never have symptoms. When diagnosed, people may be surprised to learn that they have a heart condition. In most people, mitral valve prolapse isn't life-threatening and doesn't require treatment or changes in lifestyle. Some people with mitral valve prolapse, however, require treatment.” As noted above, the applicant had no cardiac related clinical encounters following her discharge from the Army. The events which led to her discharge are unknown: Her separation packet and/or documentation addressing the circumstances of her discharge were neither submitted with the application nor in iPERMS. There is no evidence the applicant had a condition which would have failed the medical retention standards of chapter 3, AR 40-501 prior to her discharge. Thus, there was no cause for referral to the Disability Evaluation System. Furthermore, there is no evidence that any medical condition prevented the applicant from being able to reasonably perform the duties of her office, grade, rank, or rating prior to her discharge. There is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in any review of governmental action. Unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, the governmental action is presumed to have been administered correctly. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue. There is no evidence in the record nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that she was unjustly discharged from the Army. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity Based on the information currently available, it is the opinion of the Agency Medical Advisor that neither a change in the reason for separation / separation authority, nor a referral of her case to the Disability Evaluation System is warranted. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The applicant’s contentions, the military record, an advisory opinion, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. The Board considered the applicant statement, her record of service, and documents provided by the applicant. The Board considered the medical records and the review and conclusions of the advising official. Evidence of record shows the applicant had no cardiac related clinical encounters following her discharge from the Army. The Board concurred with the medical advisory opinion finding insufficient evidence in the record nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that she was unjustly discharged from the Army. Based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the Board determined there is insufficient evidence that shows a change in the narrative reason for separation is warranted. 2. The applicant's request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. In this case, the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING XXX XXX XXX 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. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, USC, 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 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. 2. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for enlisted administrative separations. a. Paragraph 3-7a (Honorable Discharge) stated an honorable discharge was a separation with honor. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally met the standards of acceptable conduct and duty performance. b. Paragraph 3-7b (General Discharge) stated a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. Paragraph 3-9 (Uncharacterized Separations). Soldiers separated in an entry- level status receive an uncharacterized character of service. A separation is an entry level status separation if its processing is initiated during the Soldier's first 180 days of continuous active duty. The Secretary of the Army could, on a case-by-case basis, issue an honorable character of service to entry-level Soldiers when clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving personal conduct or duty performance. d. Paragraph 5-3 (Secretarial Plenary Authority) stated the separation of enlisted personnel was the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army and was to be effected only by his or his designee's authority. The discharge or release of any enlisted member of the Army for the convenience of the Government will be at the Secretary’s discretion and with the type of discharge as determined by him. e. Chapter 11 (Entry Level Status Performance and Conduct) provided commanders could initiate separation action against entry level Soldiers (i.e. those who had completed no more than 180 days of continuous active duty service). (1) Commander were to use the following as the basis for separation action; the Soldier: * demonstrated he/she was not qualified for retention by not adapting socially or emotionally to military life; was unable to meet minimum standards for completing training due to a lack of aptitude, ability, motivation, or self- discipline; or demonstrated character or behavior incompatible with service * failed to respond to counseling, as reflected on DA Forms 4856-R (Developmental Counseling Form) (2) Chapter 11 additionally required the separation of enlisted women who had become pregnant while in an entry-level status, and whom the separation authority, in conjunction with the medical officer (an obstetrician) had determined the pregnant enlisted woman could not fully participate in required training. Soldiers separated due to pregnancy were entitled to maternity care in a military medical facility. 3. AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes), in effect at the time, required separation code "JFF" when Soldiers were separated per paragraph 5-3, AR 635-200. 4. AR 40-400 (Patient Administration), in effect at the time, required physicians to identify Soldiers with medical conditions that failed medical fitness retention standards, as detailed in AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness). Additionally, Soldiers not meeting AR 40-501 retention standards were required to be issued a DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile) that reflected a permanent profile, with the numerical designators of either "3" (significant limitations) or "4" (severe limitations), for the failing body system. Soldiers with permanent "3" or "4" profiles were referred to evaluation in the DES. 5. 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 on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, 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. 6. AR 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. It states: a. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The ABCMR is not an investigative body and decides cases based on the evidence presented in the military records provided and the independent evidence submitted with the application. b. An applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the Board; however, the request for a hearing may be authorized by a panel of the Board or by the Director of ABCMR. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20200003384 9 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20200003384 11 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20200003384 10