IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 July 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210015492 APPLICANT REQUESTS: change her uncharacterized discharge to honorable and the narrative reason for separation from “Condition, Not a Disability” to “Disability.” APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code, section 1552(b); 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 she was injured during boot camp when another Soldier threw a 2x4 and accidentally struck her in the knees causing them to hyperextend. She was placed on light duty and eventually recycled and began training again. A few days later her knees hyperextended while training on the shooting range and she reinjured herself. At that time, it was decided by the doctors that she was no longer fit for military service, and she was medically discharged. She receives VA disability payments at 50%. She also has veteran benefits through the VA. She also attended college under chapter 31. She does not understand why her DD Form 214 states she was discharged without disability. All the veteran benefits she currently receives are because of a service- connected disability, and her military card states service connected. 3. Review of the applicant’s service records shows: a. She enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 July 2011. She was assigned to Fort Jackson, SC for training. b. On 1 September 2011, a physical therapist at Fort Jackson Troop Medical Clinic (TMC) stated the applicant was being seen at the TMC Physical Therapy Clinic. She developed pain in the knee as a result of getting hit with a 2/6 piece of wood and hurting due to normal physical activities required in training (marching, running, jumping). (1) She reported that the pain worsened after both patellae (kneecaps) subluxed (went out of socket, then she pushed them back into socket) when shifting in the prone position during BRM. However, she has had recent diagnostic studies to rule out significant injuries and they are negative for stress fractures, joint injuries, or internal derangement (i.e., torn ligament or meniscus). She does have mild to moderate edema (swelling in the joint) in her right knee based on a recent MRI. On examination, she was found to have loose patellae (kneecaps) poor muscular stability in her legs, making it difficult for her to effectively tolerate impact related activities. (2) Because these injuries are a factor of overuse and poor biomechanics and not a stress fracture or other sig11ificant joint injury, she is not a PTRP (Physical Training and Rehabilitation Program) candidate. These injuries will resolve once she is out of the military training environment and will not cause farther problems for this Soldier that would need to be addressed by a medical provider. Because of this, the physical therapist thought that separation from the military will be in this Soldier's best interest at this time. She is also not an EPTS (Existed Prior to Service) candidate and does not meet criteria for a Medical Board. He recommended she receive a Chapter 5- 17 through her unit. c. On 20 September 2011, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to separate her from the Army in accordance with chapter 5-17 (Other Designated Physical or Mental Conditions) of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations). The specific reason: She was physically unable to complete basic training due to her loose patella. d. On 20 September 2011, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the foregoing notice from her commander. She indicated she had been notified by her commander, or his/her representative, and/or advised by her consulting counsel, of the basis for the contemplated action to separate her for an Other Designated Physical or Mental Condition under Chapter 5-17, AR 635-200, and she had been informed of the rights available to her under AR 635-200. • she waived consulting counsel and representation by military counsel and/or civilian counsel at no expense to the Government • she indicated a statement in her own behalf was not submitted • she requested copies of documents that will be sent to the separation authority supporting the proposed separation • she understood that if she received a discharge/character of service that is less than honorable, she may make application to the Army Discharge Review Board or the Army Board for Correction of Military Records for upgrading; however, she realized that an act of consideration by either board does not imply that her discharge would be upgraded e. The applicant's commander subsequently initiated separation action against her under the provisions of chapter 5-17 (other designated physical or mental condition) of AR 635-200. Her intermediate commander recommended approval with her service be characterized as entry-level separation (uncharacterized). f. On 23 September 2011, the separation authority approved the proposed separation case applicable to the applicant and ordered she would receive an entry- level separation (uncharacterized) under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 5-17. g. The applicant was accordingly discharged on 4 October 2011. Her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows she was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 5-17 of AR 635-200 due to a condition, not a disability. She completed 3 months of active service. Her DD Form 214 shows in: • Block 25 (Separation Authority), AR 635-200, Paragraph 5-17 • Block 26 (Separation Code) JFV • Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation), Physical Condition, Not a Disability 4. By regulation (AR 635-200), paragraph 5-17, states commanders may approve separation under this paragraph based on other physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability that potentially interfere with assignment to or performance of duty. A recommendation for separation must be supported by documentation confirming the existence of the physical or mental condition. Members may be separated for physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability, which is sufficiently severe that the Soldier's ability to effectively perform military duties is significantly impaired. 5. By regulation (AR 635-200), for entry level status, service will be entry level status (or uncharacterized), and so indicated in block 24 of DD Form 214. A separation will be described as an entry-level separation if processing is initiated while a member is in entry-level status, except when characterization under other than honorable condition is authorized under the reason for separation and is warranted by the circumstances of the case or when the Secretary of the Army, on a case-by-case basis, determines that characterization of service as Honorable is clearly warranted by the presence of unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of duty. A general discharge is not authorized in entry level. 6. 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/or the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS). The ARBA Medical Advisor made the following findings and recommendations: a. The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting an upgrade of her 28 July 2010 uncharacterized discharge and, in essence, a referral to the Disability Evaluation System. She states: “I was injured during boot camp when another soldier threw a 2x4 and accidentally struck me in the knees causing them to hyperextend. I was placed on light duty and eventually recycled and began training again. A few days later my knees hyperextended while training on the shooting range and I reinjured myself. At that time, it was decided by the doctors I was no longer fit for military service and I was medically discharged. I receive VA disability payments at 50%. I also have veteran benefits through the VA. I also attended college under chapter 31.” b. The Record of Proceedings details the applicant’s military service and the circumstances of the case. Her DD 214 shows she entered the regular Army on 5 July 2011 and received an uncharacterized discharged on 4 October 2011 under the separation authority provided by paragraph 5-17 of AR 635-200, Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations (17 December 2009): Other designated physical or mental conditions. c. Paragraph 5-17a of AR 635-200: Commanders specified in paragraph 1–19 may approve separation under this paragraph on the basis of other physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability (AR 635–40) and excluding conditions appropriate for separation processing under paragraph 5–11 or 5–13 that potentially interfere with assignment to or performance of duty. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to — (1) Chronic airsickness. (2) Chronic seasickness. (3) Enuresis. (4) Sleepwalking. (5) Dyslexia. (6) Severe nightmares. (7) Claustrophobia. (8) Transsexualism/gender transformation in accordance with AR 40-501 paragraph 3-35. (9) Other disorders manifesting disturbances of perception, thinking, emotional control or behavior sufficiently severe that the Soldier’s ability to effectively perform military duties is significantly impaired. d. AHTLA encounters reveal she was first seen for a musculoskeletal complaint on 1 August 2011 at which time she presented with a 2-week history of bilateral hip and bilateral knee pain. There was no report of trauma. The examination was non-specific, with the applicant having pain with bilateral hip motion and tenderness to palpation about both knees. The applicant was placed on crutches and a lower extremity bone scan was ordered. Obtained the following day, the study was negative for stress fracture or other bony pathology. e. The applicant returned for the results of her bone scan and further evaluation 4 August 2011. The provider wrote: “SM {Service Member} endorses continued posterior bilateral hip pain, with ascending stairs, pain described as sharp and throbbing, rated as a 7/10 on pain scale, denies radiation of pain. Knee joint pain Left > Right knee pain x 2 weeks, endorses pain after minor injury in which she was hit by a plank of wood during FLRC course 2 weeks ago, exacerbated in last 4 days during organized run.” f. Radiographs of the pelvis and left knee obtained on 4 August 2011 were reported as “Normal Study.” She was taken off the crutches, referred to physical therapy, placed on a temporary physical profile, and continued with conservative treatment over the next month, but her symptoms did not significantly improve. g. Her right knee, not the knee initially reported to have been struck with a plank of wood, became her more symptomatic knee. A 24 August 2011 MRI of the right knee was negative except for a small joint effusion. h. The applicant stated at her 26 August 2011 appointment that her unit was waiting for a disposition from physical therapy in order to initiate a chapter separation. Her exam that day was not consistent with true underlying pathology: No physical signs of underlying pathology were identified (swelling, brushing, etc.), she had an unexplainable decreased muscle strength in both hips and both knees, and the provider wrote “ ** noted cogwheel rigidity with hip flexion/extension and knee extension.” i. Cogwheel rigidity is muscular rigidity in which passive movement of the limbs (as during a physical examination) elicits ratchet-like start-and stop movements through the range of motion of a joint (as of the elbow) and that occurs especially in individuals affected with Parkinson's disease. When seen in routine testing of active muscle strength, it is typically associated with patient not providing full effort and attempting to voluntarily modify the results of the examination. j. She was returned to duty with a physical profile which stated: “medically safe to train or pursue administrative chapter.” k. At her physical therapy follow-up on 1 September 2011, the therapist recommended to her commander that she be separated under paragraph 5-17 of AR 635-200: “I viewed previous notes which stated that I would consider a CH 5-17 if not able to continue training. I discussed that this would be a "general discharge" and that she would not qualify for medical benefits. Also told, again, that this is something that will not require surgery or f/u care. A chapter 5-17 memo was typed, viewed by SIT {student in training} who agreed to it to give to A 2/60 company commander; f/u if needed. l. The therapist had written in his 11 September 2011 memorandum to her company commander: (1) She does have mild to moderate edema (swelling in the joint) in her right knee, based on a recent MRI. On examination, PFC {Applicant} was found to have loose patellae (kneecaps) and poor muscular stability in her legs, making it difficult for her to effectively tolerate impact related activities. (2) Because these injuries are a factor of overuse and poor biomechanics and not a stress fracture or other significant joint injury, {Applicant} is not a PTRP {physical training and rehabilitation program} candidate. These injuries will resolve once she is out of the military training environment and will not cause farther problems for this Soldier that would need to be addressed by a medical provider. (3) Because of this, I feel that separation from the military will be in this Soldier's best interest at this time. PFC {Applicant} is also not an EPTS {existed prior to service} candidate and does not meet criteria for a Medical Board. I recommend she receive a Chapter 5-17 through A Company, 2/60 INF Regiment. m. Given no identifiable single underlying pathology, no definitive diagnosis was made during this period. The most common diagnoses were “Joint pain, localized in the hip: and “Joint pain, localized in the knee.” Later, the applicant was diagnosed with “Overuse syndrome,” and this was likely the better choice for the overall clinical picture. n. In a 20 September 2011, her commander notified her of his initiation of separation actions under paragraph 5-17 of AR 635-200. In addition to her medical condition, he noted she was a No-Go with common tasks testing. His recommendation for her discharge was approved by the brigade commander on 23 September 2011. o. The natural history of overuse injuries in a healthy individual is complete healing and resolution of symptoms when the offending stressors are removed (e.g., running). There is no evidence these injuries went on to become problematic. Furthermore, there is no evidence the applicant’s condition(s) would have failed the medical retention standards of chapter 3, AR 40-501 prior to her discharge. Thus, there would have been no cause for referral to the Disability Evaluation System. p. Review of her records in JLV show the applicant has received several service- connected disability ratings for her knees. However, the Disability Evaluation System (DES) compensates disabilities when they cause or contribute to career termination, not after an administrative discharge. It has neither the role nor the authority to compensate service members for anticipated future severity or potential complications of conditions incurred during their Service. These roles and authorities are granted by Congress to the Department of Veterans' Affairs and executed under a different set of laws. q. The applicant received an uncharacterized discharge. This is given to individuals who separate prior to completing 180 days of military service, or when the discharge action was initiated prior to 180 days of service. This type of discharge does not attempt to characterize service as good or bad. Through no fault of her own, he simply had a medical condition which unfortunately prevented her from rigorous military training. r. It is the opinion of the Agency Medical Advisor that neither an upgrade of her discharge 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, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. The Board also considered the findings and recommendation of the agency’s medical reviewer. Based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the Board determined there is insufficient evidence to grant relief. The governing regulation provides that a separation will be described as an entry-level separation, with service uncharacterized, if the separation action is initiated while a Soldier is in entry-level status. As such, her 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. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, United States 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 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 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) provides for the separation of enlisted personnel from active duty. a. Chapter 3 of that regulation describes the different types of characterization of service. It states in pertinent part: (1) An uncharacterized separation is an entry-level separation. A separation will be described as an entry-level separation with service uncharacterized if processing is initiated while a Soldier is in entry-level status, except when (1) Characterization under other than honorable conditions is authorized under the reason for separation and is warranted by the circumstances of the case; (2) Headquarters, Department of the Army on a case-by-case basis, determines that characterization of service as honorable is clearly warranted by the presence of unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of duty (this characterization is authorized when the Soldier is separated by reason of selected changes in service obligation, convenience of the Government, and Secretarial plenary authority), or (3) The Soldier has less than 181 days of continuous active military service, has completed Initial Entry Training, has been awarded an MOS, and has reported for duty at a follow-on unit of assignment. (2) For Regular Army Soldiers, entry-level status is the first 180 days of continuous active duty or the first 180 days of continuous active duty following a break of more than 92 days of active military service. (3) An honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member'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 5-17, states commanders who are special court-martial convening authorities may approve separation under this paragraph based on other physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability that potentially interfere with assignment to or performance of duty. A recommendation for separation must be supported by documentation confirming the existence of the physical or mental condition. Members may be separated for physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability, which is sufficiently severe that the Soldier's ability to effectively perform military duties is significantly impaired. 3. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities, reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD code to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies SPD code JFV as the appropriate code to assign to enlisted Soldiers who are administratively discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-17, based on a condition, not a disability. 4. 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. a. 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, 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. b. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20210015492 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1