IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 March 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210011443 APPLICANT REQUESTS: in effect, upgrade of her general discharge to an honorable physical disability discharge or retirement. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) 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 her medical records should show that she did not complete her last Army physical fitness test (APFT) due to problems with her knee, which should be documented. She was told she could go home to rehabilitate and come back to complete her last run but was later told she would have to go through basic training again. She has had constant pain in her knee and back after falling off the tower on a cold day when she couldn’t feel her hands. 3. A DD Form 2808 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 25 July 2008, shows the applicant underwent an examination for the purpose of enlistment. She was initially assigned a physical profile of 3/3T11111, with the annotation: baby born on … needs to wait for 6 months until 30 October 2008. Her profile was recorded a second time on as 311111, with annotation 4 pounds overweight related to recent pregnancy. A physical profile, as reflected on a DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile) or DD Form 2808, is derived using six body systems: "P" = physical capacity or stamina; "U" = upper extremities; "L" = lower extremities; "H" = hearing; "E" = eyes; and "S" = psychiatric (abbreviated as PULHES). Each body system has a numerical designation: 1 meaning a high level of fitness; 2 indicates some activity limitations are warranted, 3 reflects significant limitations, and 4 reflects one or more medical conditions of such a severity that performance of military duties must be drastically limited. Physical profile ratings can be either permanent or temporary. 4. The applicant enlisted in the United States Army Reserve on 15 August 2008 for a period of 8 years. Her DD Form 2808 was updated with a third profile on 12 November 2008, to 111111, and she was found qualified for service. She entered initial active duty for training (IADT) on 13 November 2008. 5. A Standard Form (SF) 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Card), dated 9 February 2009, shows the applicant was examined for localized knee pain and hip pain. She had previously been diagnosed with bilateral knee pain and stress fractures according to bone scan results. The findings showed no hip or pelvic lesions. There was mild focal uptake at both medial tibial plateaus combined with stress fractures. Clinical correlation was suggested in order to determine if these lesions were significant and require further attention. 6. A SF 600, dated 16 March 2009, states the applicant was in a holdover status when sent home on 30 days convalescent leave due to bilateral metatarsophalangeal (MTP) stress injuries, just returned 14 March, still has to take APFT, AIT at Fort Gordon…Current Pain = 2/10. Performed walking and swimming while home for cardio vascular (CV) fitness. Observation shows no visible swelling, discoloration, or deformities. Non-tender to palpitation, no palpable deformities, no effusion or edema, no crepitus. Poor balance with SLS, poor leg control noted with SLS and mini-squat, able to squat to floor with pain. Diagnosis shows bilateral MTP stress, healed. She was released without limitations. 7. A DA Form 2173 (Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status), prepared on 19 March 2009, shows the applicant sustained bilateral MTP stress fractures (knees) on 23 November 2008 at Fort Jackson, SC. It states the applicant was injured while participating in physical fitness training over time. The details of the accident states “Soldier training overtime has caused the injury she is now dealing with. Cannot say exactly the time frame but there was no one event that caused the nature of this event. She has not been able to complete the training needed to pass BCT.” 8. A memorandum dated 31 March 2009 shows the applicant’s line of duty investigation was reviewed for completeness and the injury was found to be “In the Line of Duty.” 9. The complete facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not in her available records for review. Her available service records do not contain a copy of her discharge packet. 10. The applicant was discharged on 24 June 2009 under the provisions of AR 635-200 chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance. Her character of service is under honorable conditions (general). Her separation code is JHJ and reentry code 3. 11. 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. 12. 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 24 June 2009 discharge characterized as under honorable conditions (general), and, in essence, a referral to the Disability Evaluation System. He states: “My medical records should show that I did not completed my last PT test due to my constant problems with my knee which should be documented. I was told I could to home to rehabilitate and come back only to complete my last run but after was told I would have to go back through basic training again.” b. The Record of Proceedings outlines the applicant’s military service and the circumstances of the case. The applicant’s DD 214 shows the former USAR Soldier entered active duty on 13 November 2008 and was discharged 24 June 2009 under the provisions in chapter 13 of AR 635-200, Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations (6 June 2005): Separation for Unsatisfactory Performance. c. AHLTA records show the applicant was first seen for a knee pain on 6 December 2008. She was treated with Naprosyn and followed up after what appears to have been block leave. d. Following the holidays, she was seen for her knee pain and a new complaint of left hip pain on 12 January 2009. There was not history of trauma. She was treated conservatively with medication, provided with crutches, and a bone scan was ordered to rule out a femoral neck stress fracture. The bone scan obtained 14 January 2009 revealed mild stress fractures of her medial tibial plateaus (tibial side of the knee joint) but no other lesions. e. She continued conservative treatment, to include temporary physical profiles and physical therapy (PT). From her 11 May 2009 follow-up appointment: “Soldier to clinic for follow-up of bilateral knee pain. Has completed all requirements for BCT {basic combat training} except APFT {Army Physical Fitness Test} and was in holdover status 1 week, then sent home on 30 days UCL {unit convalescent leave}. Returned 14 March and last evaluation in this clinic was 7 April, still unable to pass APFT because of knee pain. f. From her 20 May 2009 follow-up encounter: (1) Soldier sent back to clinic for evaluation for PTRP {Physical Training and Rehabilitation Program} despite my recommendations provided on the previous profile allowing RTFD {return to full duty} and stating "Soldier is not a PTRP, EPTS, or MEB candidate". Has completed all requirements for BCT except APFT and was in holdover status 1 week, then sent home on 30 days UCL. Returned 14 March and last evaluation in this clinic was 7 April, still unable to pass APFT because of knee pain. (2) All clinical and diagnostic studies are consistent with patellofemoral pain and are NOT consistent with a bone stress injury. Her previous stress REACTIONS in the knees are completely healed and are not the source nor the location of her complaints. g. A repeat bone scan was ordered. The applicant was injected with the radioactive tracer on 26 May 2009 but failed to return later that day for the scan itself. The scan was successfully concluded on 1 June 2009 are revealed “Minor focal uptake at the left > right medial tibial plateaus is c/w minimal stress fractures.” h. There are no Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecards (DA form 705) submitted with the application or in iPERMS. Neither her separation packet nor documentation elucidating her separation was submitted with the application nor uploaded into iPERMS. i. There are no electronic records in JLV. j. Due the insufficiency of probative documentation, it is the opinion of the ARBA Medical Advisor that neither a discharge upgrade nor a referral to the DES is indicated. 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 Board carefully considered the applicant's record of service, documents submitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensive and standard review based on law, policy and regulation. The Board determined the applicant’s records are absent of the facts and circumstances surrounding her discharge and are not in her available records for review. However, upon further review of the applicant’s petition, available military records and the medical review the Board concurred with the advising official finding that neither a discharge upgrade nor a referral to the DES is indicated. Evidence shows the applicant was discharged for unsatisfactory performance and was provided an under honorable conditions (General) characterization of service. The Board determined the applicant’s discharge characterization is warranted as she did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel to receive an honorable discharge and referral to DES is without merit. Based on this, the Board determined relief was not warranted and denied relief. 2. The Board determined DES compensates an individual only for service incurred condition(s) which have been determined to disqualify him or her from further military service. The DES has neither the role nor the authority to compensate service members for anticipated future severity or potential complications of conditions which were incurred or permanently aggravated during their military service; or which did not cause or contribute to the termination of their military career. 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 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 13 contains policy and outlines procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance and provides that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. b. The service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by their military records. c. 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. d. 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. 3. Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) governs medical fitness standards for enlistment, induction, appointment (including officer procurement programs), retention, and separation (including retirement). The Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities. VASRD is used by the Army and the VA as part of the process of adjudicating disability claims. It is a guide for evaluating the severity of disabilities resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of or incident to military service. This degree of severity is expressed as a percentage rating which determines the amount of monthly compensation. 4. Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army Disability Evaluation System 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 office, grade, rank, or rating. Only the unfitting conditions or defects and those which contribute to unfitness will be considered in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity warranting retirement or separation for disability. Once a determination of physical unfitness is made, all disabilities are rated using the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). a. Disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service- incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to Soldiers whose service is interrupted and who can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in military service. b. Soldiers who sustain or aggravate physically-unfitting disabilities must meet the following line-of-duty criteria to be eligible to receive retirement and severance pay benefits: (1) The disability must have been incurred or aggravated while the Soldier was entitled to basic pay or as the proximate cause of performing active duty or inactive duty training. (2) The disability must not have resulted from the Soldier's intentional misconduct or willful neglect and must not have been incurred during a period of unauthorized absence. 5. Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, provides the Secretaries of the Military Departments with authority to retire or discharge a member if they find the member unfit to perform military duties because of physical disability. The U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency is responsible for administering the Army physical disability evaluation system and executes Secretary of the Army decision-making authority as directed by Congress in chapter 61 and in accordance with DOD Directive 1332.18 and Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation). a. Soldiers are referred to the disability system when they no longer meet medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3, as evidenced in an MEB; when they receive a permanent medical profile rating of 3 or 4 in any factor and are referred by an MOS Medical Retention Board; and/or they are command-referred for a fitness-for-duty medical examination. b. The disability evaluation assessment process involves two distinct stages: the MEB and PEB. The purpose of the MEB is to determine whether the service member's injury or illness is severe enough to compromise his/her ability to return to full duty based on the job specialty designation of the branch of service. A PEB is an administrative body possessing the authority to determine whether or not a service member is fit for duty. A designation of "unfit for duty" is required before an individual can be separated from the military because of an injury or medical condition. Service members who are determined to be unfit for duty due to disability either are separated from the military or are permanently retired, depending on the severity of the disability and length of military service. Individuals who are "separated" receive a one-time severance payment, while veterans who retire based upon disability receive monthly military retired pay and have access to all other benefits afforded to military retirees. c. The mere presence of a medical impairment does not in and of itself justify a finding of unfitness. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier may reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. Reasonable performance of the preponderance of duties will invariably result in a finding of fitness for continued duty. A Soldier is physically unfit when a medical impairment prevents reasonable performance of the duties required of the Soldier's office, grade, rank, or rating. 6. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rating of at least 30 percent. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years of service and a disability rating of less than 30 percent. 7. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20210011443 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1