MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 16 April 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002066112

         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson
Ms. Melinda M. Darby		Member
Mr. John T. Meixell		Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

         The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)

---

APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the effective date of her promotion to Sergeant First Class (SFC), E-7 be backdated to 1 December 2000.

APPLICANT STATES: That she received a profile to take an alternate Army physical fitness test (APFT) and her command refused to give it to her. She was flagged for APFT test failure. Also, she had an administrative separation board hearing on 26 January 2001 which found she had a medical condition which prevented her from passing the APFT. Supporting evidence is as listed on the DD Form 149.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:

She enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 July 1984. She was promoted to Staff Sergeant, E-6 on 1 October 1996.

On 22 June 1998, medical testing revealed the applicant had a thyroid condition resulting in an abnormal thyroid uptake.

The applicant was selected for promotion to SFC by the May 2000 SFC Selection Board and assigned sequence number #197.

The applicant was apparently flagged for APFT failure in May 2000. Her noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCO-ER) for the period ending September 2000 indicates she failed the APFT in September 2000.

On 27 October 2000, the applicant again failed the APFT. Separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance was initiated on an unknown date. Board members were appointed by letter dated 15 December 2000.

On 14 November 2000, the applicant was given a temporary physical profile for a medical condition of osteoarthritis in the ankles, hips, and knees. She was given assignment limitations of no running or high impact activities of the lower extremities. She was allowed to take an alternate APFT consisting of push-ups, sit-ups, and a walk, swim, or bicycle event.

The applicant’s promotion sequence number came up on 1 December 2000. She could not be promoted because she was flagged.

The applicant appeared before a separation board on 26 January 2001. Portions of her chapter 13 packet are available. The Chief of Endocrinology at the Eisenhower Army Medical Center at Fort Gordon, GA testified at her board. He testified that his initial consultation with the applicant was in November 2000 when she was evaluated for an endocrine-thyroid disorder. Her test levels were suggestive of an overactive thyroid and he diagnosed her with autoimmune thyroid disease, which could encompass many thyroid disorders, including Graves Disease. He testified that hyperthyroidism causes a variety of symptoms and physical problems including fatigue, muscle weakness, and difficulty in performing physical exercise. He testified that, for people with Graves Disease, he would give them a profile to limit their physical activity, to include doing the APFT at their own pace, but that they should not take an APFT until their thyroid hormone levels have been normal for at least 2 months. He testified that, since the applicant’s records showed her to have abnormal thyroid hormone levels as early as 1998 it would be reasonable to assume she did have an abnormal thyroid condition during the time she took the APFTs in 2000 and that her condition could certainly have been affected by the abnormal hormone levels. Upon further questioning he stated that he could not say with any certainly that she was feeling the effects of her hyperthyroidism when she was failing those five (record and diagnostic) APFTs.

The applicant’s command sergeant major testified at her board hearing. He testified that he gave the applicant the 27 October 2000 APFT for several reasons. Prior to chaptering out an NCO for APFT failure he wanted to see it for himself. He was a Master Fitness Trainer so he wanted to make sure that everything went according to regulations. She was scheduled to attend the Advanced NCO Course and she was required to take an APFT prior to attendance. He believed the applicant gave 100 to 110 percent on the run. He was not informed of any issues as far as medical conditions which would have kept her from passing the October APFT. He assumed that when the applicant took the APFT she did not know she had this condition. She did not go to him and say a doctor told her she had this disease. His personal opinion was that the applicant could overcome any APFT failure once she got her Graves Disease under control

The Report of Proceedings by Investigation Officer/Board of Officers, DA Form 1574, notes that the separation board found that the applicant did fail two consecutive APFTs but recommended that she be retained in the service. The legal review of the separation packet noted that the board found by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant failed two consecutive APFTs and that there was an underlying medical condition which existed that prevented her from passing the test. The appropriate authority approved the board’s findings and recommendation.

On 25 January 2001, the applicant was referred for an endocrinology consult with monthly appointments beginning 1 February 2001 and then twice monthly for the next 6 months to treat a provisional diagnosis of Graves Disease.

On 18 May 2001, the applicant was given a permanent physical profile for arthritis in the hips and knees. She was given assignment limitations of no unit level runs and no impact activities. She was allowed to take an alternate APFT consisting of push-ups, sit-ups, and a walk event.

In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Promotions Branch, U. S. Total Army Personnel Command. That office noted that the applicant had been flagged for APFT failure when her sequence number came up on 1 December 2000. Her flag was removed effective 17 May 2001 when she passed the APFT and she was promoted effective 17 May 2001. That office opined that to backdate her date of rank would afford her an unfair advantage not given to other soldiers and recommended disapproval of her request.

A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment or rebuttal. She stated that it was proven at her separation board that she had a pre-existing medical condition prior to being administered the APFT and the board recommended that she would not be separated from the Army. The regulation states that if you find out a female soldier is pregnant you would remove the flag, so she asked her commander to remove her flag after it was discovered she had a medical condition. He told her it was not authorized by the regulation to do so. She was also given a profile that stated she would be given an alternate APFT but her commander refused to give her the APFT because he had already submitted the separation packet. She has since been given a permanent profile and attended the Advanced Course where she passed the APFT.

Army Regulation 600-8-2 prescribes policies governing the suspension of favorable personnel actions (flagging actions). It states that a transferable flag will be initiated when a soldier fails to pass the APFT. Flags for APFT failure block promotion, reenlistment, and extension only. The flag will be removed on the day the soldier passes the APFT. It also states that a non-transferable flag will be initiated when a field-initiated elimination action is started. The effective date of removal is the day on which the soldier’s status changes. This regulation does not discuss circumstances wherein a soldier fails an APFT and is later discovered to be pregnant.

DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

2. The applicant failed her first APFT in May 2000 and it appears she failed one or two other, non-record APFTs before a second record APFT failure in September 2000. While she may not have known just what her medical condition was, i.e., Graves Disease, she had known since 1998 that she had a thyroid problem. She failed two or three APFTs after her first failure in May 2000. She provides no evidence to show that she sought medical attention to discover if her thyroid condition or any medical condition could have been the reason for her APFT failures.

3. The applicant’s command sergeant major testified that he was not informed of any issues as far as medical conditions which would have kept her from passing the October APFT. He testified she did not go to him and say a doctor told her she had this disease and it appears she did not tell him she had a thyroid condition or any other condition that may have kept her from passing the APFT. It appears she did not ask him if she could be medically evaluated before taking another APFT. As an NCO, soon to be a senior NCO, the applicant had a responsibility to look after her own health and her own career by seeking a medical evaluation long before her fifth APFT failure.

4. The Board notes that the applicant was given a temporary profile weeks after her 27 October 2000 APFT failure; however, it was for an arthritis condition, not a thyroid condition. She was given a permanent profile in May 2001. However, once again, it was for an arthritis condition, not a thyroid condition.

5. The Board notes that Army Regulation 600-8-2 does not discuss circumstances wherein a soldier fails an APFT and is later discovered to be pregnant. Nevertheless, the applicant’s circumstances were not similar to a pregnant soldier. A soldier discovered to be two months pregnant in May most likely would have sought medical attention well before October.

6. The Board notes that on 25 January 2001 the applicant was referred for an endocrinology consult with monthly appointments beginning 1 February 2001 to treat a provisional diagnosis of Graves Disease. Considering the Chief of Endocrinology’s testimony at her separation board, that he would place soldiers with Graves Disease on a temporary profile but that they should not take an APFT until their thyroid hormone levels have been normal for at least 2 months, it appears that giving her next APFT in May 2001 was not inappropriate. The applicant’s flag was removed after she passed that APFT and she was promoted to SFC effective the date she passed.

7. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________ ________ ________ GRANT

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__inw___ __mmd___ __jtm___ DENY APPLICATION

                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001066112
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20020416
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	131.04
2.	131.05
3.
4.
5.
6.