IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 July 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220007892 APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of his National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) for the period ending 23 August 1999 to show: * the narrative reason for his separation was due to medical disability rather than "Failure to Report to Initial Active Duty Training (IADT) Phase 1 or 2" * his characterization of service as Under Honorable Conditions (General) APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Discharge Orders, dated 2 August 1999 * Amendment Orders, dated 17 November 2000 * NGB Form 22, effective date 23 August 1999 * Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) results, dated 12 January 1999 * Email message, dated 1 June 2022 FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. Code (USC), 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, in effect, he injured his right knee (chondromalacia patella, torn meniscus) while attending basic combat training (BCT) at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, in 1998. He saw a doctor at sick call who handed him a bottle of Ibuprofen and released him back to duty. a. When he returned home, his personal doctor sent him to see an orthopedic specialist. The orthopedic specialist had him undergo an MRI which showed there was internal damage. As a result, he was referred for physical therapy for 6-8 months. b. When it was time for him to go to advanced individual training (AIT), his physician did not release him for full activity, and he requested to be put on a medical profile to attend (AIT). He was informed the Nebraska Army National Guard (NEARNG) did not send Soldiers to AIT while on a medical profile, and his request was denied. He was given the decision of attending AIT and risking further damage to his knee or being discharged from the NEARNG on a medical discharge. He was also told the medical discharge would turn into a "general, under honorable conditions" discharge after time. He agreed to the medical discharge and parted ways with the NEARNG. c. He did not see his NGB Form 22 until he requested a copy of it in 2017, and that is when he noticed the error. He feels it is an unfair characterization of over 18 months of service when he had every intention of continuing his commitment but was prevented from doing so by an injury sustained at BCT that was not properly diagnosed or treated at the training location. d. He attempted to resolve this matter with the NEARNG, Adjutant General, and Judge Advocate General offices but was advised that there is no board at the State level, and he should seek relief from the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA). 3. The applicant enlisted in the NEARNG on 11 February 1998 for a period of 8 years. a. He enlisted for the Split Training Option for Initial Entry Training (IET) which provided he must enter on IADT to undergo the BCT program. Upon completion of BCT, he would be released from active duty (REFRAD) and permitted to return to civilian status. He would then immediately commence training with his assigned ARNG unit in a paid drill status. Within one year of the last day of his separation from IADT after successful completion of BCT, he would again be required to enter IADT to successfully complete AIT resulting in qualification in a Military Occupational Specialty (MOS). If for any reason he was unable to successfully complete AIT during the period for which he was ordered on IADT, he agreed to: (1). Remain on IADT for such additional period as was required to become qualified in his selected MOS, or (2). Accept training in an alternate MOS, if offered, and remain on IADT for such additional period as may be required to complete such training and become qualified in the alternate MOS. b. He understood current provisions of law would not satisfy his military service obligation unless he completed 8-years of satisfactory service as a member of the ARNG and Reserve of the Army, and, during such service, complete 12 consecutive weeks of active duty for training with an Armed Force. 4. Orders 034-3, issued by Department of Defense (DoD), Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS), Omaha, NE on 20 February 1998, show the applicant was ordered to IADT effective 9 June 1998 for the purpose of completing BCT at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, with a reporting date of 10 June 1998. He was scheduled to arrive home no later than 23 August 1998 for school and/or seasonal employment. 5. Five DA Forms 5181 (Screening Note of Acute Medical Care) and a Stand Form 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care) show the applicant was evaluated/treated by medical personnel on the following dates for: a. On 19 June 1998, for experiencing chest tightness, shortness of breath, periodic wheezing, and periodic coughing within 4-6 minutes of increased activity. The symptoms were resolved within 4-6 minutes after stopping. He reported experiencing these symptoms for the last year. He was returned to duty. b. On 23 June 1998, for experiencing sharp neck and spine pain and knee pain on a recurring basis. He was prescribed Motrin and returned to duty. c. On 26 June 1998, for experiencing severe depression, suicidal ideations, and severe nosebleed. He was recommended for 24-hour unit watch and referred to the Community Mental Health Service. d. On 24 July 1998, for experiencing shin splints and foot pain stemming from Athlete's Feet which manifested as bleeding, cracking, and blistering in both feet. He was prescribed Motrin, Clotrimazole, and Aluminum Acetate, and placed on a no jumping and running profile for 3 days. e. On 1 August 1998, for sore throat, coughing, and recurring sharp right knee pain. He was diagnosed with Acute Pharyngitis and Tendonitis in his right knee. He was prescribed throat lozenges, Penicillin V Potassium, and Ibuprofen. 6. Orders 080-11, issued by DoD, MEPS, Omaha, NE on 28 April 1999, show the applicant was ordered to IADT effective 6 June 1999 for the purpose of completing AIT for MOS 77F (Petroleum Specialist) at Fort Lee, VA with a reporting date of 7 June 1999. 7. The specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's separation are not available for review. However, Orders 214-106, issued by the State of Nebraska, Military Department, Office of The Adjutant General, Lincoln, NE on 2 August 1999, show the applicant was discharged from the ARNG and as a Reserve of the Army effective 23 August 1999. His discharge is shown as "Not Authorized." Under the provisions of National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), paragraphs 8-5 (Guidelines on Separation and Characterization) and 8-26n (Entry level status and conduct). These orders show he held the rank/grade of private (PV2)/E-2 at the time of his separation. The orders were subsequently amended to show he held the rank grade of private first class (PFC)/E-3 at the time of his separation. 8. The applicant was discharged from the NEARNG and as a Reserve of the Army on 23 August 1999. His NGB Form 22 shows he was discharged under the provisions of NGR 600-200, paragraphs 8-5 and 8-26n, for failure to report to IADT phase 1 or 2. He was credited with 1 year, 6 months, and 13 days of net service this period. His character of service is shown as "Not Authorized." An NGB Form 22A (Correction to NGB Form 22), dated 21 February 2023, corrected Item 24 to show his character of service as "Uncharacterized." 9. The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for correction of his character of service. On 13 December 2018, the ADRB informed the applicant that he must seek relief from his State Adjutant General or the NGB before applying to the ADRB. In view of the foregoing, his petition was returned without action and without prejudice. 10. The applicant provides MRI results rendered for his right lower exterior joint by the Bryan LGH Medical Center East, Department of Diagnostic Radiology Consultation, Lincoln, NE on 12 January 1999. The indication was internal derangement. The findings were sagittal axial and coronal images of the right knee were obtained with T1 and T2, fat suppressed, inversion recovery, and STIR weighted imaging. The impressions were: * shallow patellar groove, concerning for predisposition to subluxation and development of chondromalacia patella * no distinct cartilaginous erosion was seen on the exam * small joint infusion * no evidence of internal derangement 11. By regulation, IET is mandatory training each Army Soldier must complete upon initial entry in the service to qualify in a military specialty or branch. Regardless of time in service, ARNG and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Soldiers are considered to be in entry level status until completion of IADT. 12. Published guidance to the Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records clearly indicates that the guidance is not intended to interfere or impede on the Board's statutory independence. The Board will determine the relative weight of the action that led to the discharge and whether it supports relief or not. 13. Based on the applicant's claim that he should have been separated due to a service incurred medical condition, the Army Review Board Agency medical staff provided a medical review for the Board members. See the "MEDICAL REVIEW" section. 14. MEDICAL REVIEW: a. The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting documents, the Record of Proceedings (ROP), and the applicant's available records in the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS), the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA), the Health Artifacts Image Management Solutions (HAIMS) and the VA's Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV). The applicant requests discharge upgrade from Uncharacterized to General Under Honorable Conditions. He is also seeking medical discharge processing. He contends that he injured his right knee in 1998 during basic training. b. The ROP was reviewed. Of note, the applicant enlisted on 11Feb1998. He completed approximately 9 weeks of training under the alternate (split) training program. He attended BCT 19980609 to 19980813. He was ordered to report to inactive duty training 09Jun1999, but he stated in his ABCMR application that he was undergoing physical therapy for a knee injury at the time and had not been released to participate. He was discharged from the Army National Guard in August 1999 under provisions of NGR-600-200 para 8-5 and 8-26n, due to failure to report to IADT Phase 1 or 2. c. Medical records (and related) relevant to his contentions are below. * In the 06Feb1998 Medical Prescreening, the applicant denied history of joint pain and denied ‘trick’ or locked knee issues in the 11Feb1998 Report of Medical History. The enlistment lower extremity physical exam was normal. * 23Jun1998 Screening Note of Acute Medical Care. The applicant was seen for knee pain. The knee exam was within normal limits with the exception of patellofemoral (grind?). There was full range of motion (FROM). Diagnosis: Patellofemoral Syndrome. * 01Aug1998 Record of Acute Medical Care. He reported sharp diffuse knee pain for 1 week. He had FROM. There was no erythema, tenderness, swelling, laxity, or instability. Diagnosis: Tendinitis Right Knee. He was in week 7 of BCT. * 12Jan1999 Bryan LGH Medical Center East. The right lower extremity MRI showed a developmental abnormality in that he had a shallow patellar grove which could predispose him to subluxation (partial dislocation) and could also predispose him to develop chondromalacia patella. However, the radiologist stated that there was no evidence of this currently (“no distinct cartilaginous erosion”). There was no evidence of internal derangement. He did have a small joint effusion. * 07Jun1999 he was to report for 10 weeks of initial active duty training. d. The applicant stated that he was undergoing physical therapy after BCT. He stated that he was diagnosed with chondromalacia patella and torn meniscus. The January 1999 right lower extremity MRI taken 5 months after completion of BCT showed no evidence of chondromalacia patella and no evidence of internal derangement. There were linear Grade 2 signal changes within the posterior horn of both menisci and in the anterior horn of the lateral meniscus. These are generally considered to be consistent with intrasubstance degeneration but not true tears. A knee effusion was present which can be associated with trauma, overuse, infection etc. No records were submitted concerning treatment or follow-up for the knee condition. JLV search revealed that the applicant has not been service connected by the VA. There was objective evidence (MRI findings) that the applicant had a developmental abnormality (a shallow patellar grove) in the knee that predisposed him to subluxation and instability. Based on records available for review, evidence was insufficient to support that the applicant’s knee condition(s) failed medical retention standards of AR 40-501 chapter 3. If the developmental patellar grove abnormality or his Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome condition (diagnosed in June 1998) significantly interfered with training, the condition(s) would be disqualifying under AR 40-501 chapter 2. Chapter separation under para 5-11 or 5-17 could have been considered; however, since medical records documenting knee therapy post basic training were not available, and in addition, the exact circumstances for the applicant’s discharge are unknown; no changes are recommended at this time—medical discharge processing is not warranted at this time. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application, all supporting documents and the evidence found within the military record, the Board determined that relief not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, and evidence in the records. Documentation available for review shows that the applicant completed Basic Combat Training. However, documentation does not reveal medical evidence to support that the applicant had any knee condition that would have interfered with further training. In the absence of supporting documentation available for review or that provided by the applicant, the Board agreed the applicant had not met the burden of proof and relief was not warranted. 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 Board determined 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 three 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 three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Title 10, USC, Section 1556, provides the Secretary of the Army shall ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by ARBA is provided a copy of all correspondence and communications, including summaries of verbal communications, with any agencies or persons external to agency or board, or a member of the staff of the agency or Board, that directly pertains to or has material effect on the applicant's case, except as authorized by statute. 3. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) 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. It is not an investigative body. 4. Army Regulation 135-91 (Service Obligations, Methods of Fulfillment, Participation Requirements and Enforcement Procedures) provides guidance governing absences from Ready Reserve training for enlisted personnel. Paragraph 3-4 provides that Soldiers enlisted in the Alternate Training Program are authorized and required to attend inactive duty training (IDT)s in a pay status on completion of Phase 1 (BCT). At the discretion of the unit commander, the Soldier may attend Annual between BCT and Phase 2 (AIT). 5. Army Regulation 135-178 (Reserve Component – Enlisted Separations), establishes policies, standards, and procedures governing the administrative separation of certain enlisted Soldiers of the ARNG of the United States (ARNGUS) and the USAR. In pertinent part, this regulation stipulates that IET is mandatory training each Army Soldier must complete upon initial entry in the service to qualify in a military specialty or branch. This training is required by law for deployability on land outside the continental limits of the United States in accordance with Title 10, USC, Chapter 671. IET encompasses the completion of basic training and specialty or branch qualification while serving on active duty or active duty for training. For ARNG and USAR Soldiers it includes completion of initial active duty for training, the officer basic course, and the warrant officer basic course. a. Paragraph 2-9a provides that an honorable characterization of service is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier'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 2-9b provides that a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service is warranted when significant negative aspects of the Soldier's conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the Soldier's military record. c. Paragraph 2-9c provides that service may be characterized as UOTHC when discharge is for misconduct, fraudulent entry, unsatisfactory participation, or security reasons. d. Paragraph 2-11 provides that. Service will be described as uncharacterized if separation processing is initiated while a Soldier is in an entry level status 6. NGR 600-200 provides for the management of ARNG enlisted personnel. Chapter 8 of this regulation sets the policies, standards, and procedures for the separation of enlisted Soldiers from the ARNG. It states, in pertinent part, that the separation of a Soldier from the ARNG is a function of State military authorities in accordance with State laws and regulations. Paragraph 8-26n, stipulates that Soldiers who fail to attend IET phase 1 or 2 within 24 months will be separated. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220007892 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1