RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        30 AUGUST 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040010024


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

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Paul Smith                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Yolanda Maldonado             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Leonard Hassell               |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  In effect, the applicant requests physical disability retirement or
separation.  She requests that her discharge from the Army National Guard
and as a Reserve of the Army be corrected to show a medical discharge vice
the “Uncharacterized” character of service reflected on her report of
separation.

2.  The applicant states that she enlisted in the New Hampshire Army
National Guard on 19 May 1999, went to basic training, and almost two
months later started to feel pain in her left hip.  A bone scan showed that
she had a stress facture in her left hip.  She returned home, and after two
months at home, because her injury was not healing correctly she had three
screws inserted in her hip.  After her surgery, the stress fracture began
to heal but the pain was getting worse.  In July 2001 she had surgery to
remove the screws.  Her hip was still extremely painful and a doctor at the
Boston MEPS (Military Entrance Processing Station) diagnosed her with
chronic pain in her left hip due to the stress fracture she received while
in basic training, and indicated that she would be permanently disqualified
from all military service.

      a.  She was discharged from the New Hampshire Army National Guard on
26 February 2001 with an uncharacterized character of service.  After
filing a claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), on 1 April
2002 the VA awarded her a disability rating.  In June 2002 she inquired
about a loan guarantee from the VA and was informed that in order to
receive a VA loan she needed to have a 30 percent disability rating.  They
then told her that her discharge was not a medical discharge, but an
uncharacterized discharge and that she should apply to the Army Review
Boards Agency for relief.

      c.  She has been to numerous doctors because of her chronic pain.  A
doctor at the VA hospital in Hampton, Virginia stated that her pain was due
to permanent nerve damage in her left hip.  She is taking numerous
medications for her pain.  Once she found out the source of her chronic
pain, she gathered all her medical records and is forwarding them to this
Board.  She is submitting every piece of paper she gathered over the past
five years.

3.  The applicant provides:

      a.  copy of her VA application for compensation, VA disability rating,
medical evaluation form (MEPS BOS Form 91), discharge order, National Guard
Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), DA Form
2173 (Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status), DD Form 293
(Application for the Review of Discharge), Medical Department Activity at
Fort Jackson memorandum, dated 17 August 1999, memorandum reflecting her
release from active duty, and medical status form (MEPS BOS Form 50), dated
23 February 2001.

      b.  copies of numerous medical documents showing her treatment at the
Manchester, New Hampshire VA Medical Clinic (VAMC) in 2001 and 2002, and
the Hampton, Virginia VAMC in 2003 and 2004.

      c.  copies of physical profile dated 5 November 2000, medical records
dated in March and May 2000, and medical records dated in July and August
1999 while she was on active duty.

      d.  copies of numerous medical records, to include radiology tests,
based on her visits to and treatment by a doctor at the Hitchcock Clinic in
Nashua, New Hampshire in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003.

      e.  copies of enlistment documents and related papers, active duty
report, enlistment medical examination and related medical documents.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard for 8 years on 19 May
1999 under the provisions of the split training option, i. e., initial
active duty for training (IADT) for basic training, return to civilian
status and train with National Guard unit, and enter upon IADT to complete
advanced individual training (AIT) within one year after completion of
basic training.

2.  On 19 May 1999 the applicant underwent a medical examination for the
purpose of enlisting in the Army National Guard.  The report of that
examination indicates that she was qualified for enlistment with a physical
profile serial of        1 1 1 1 2 1.  The report did indicate that she was
overweight, but also that she was within the allowable body fat content.

3.  Body fat content worksheets dated 24 June 1999 show that she did not
meet the Army weight standards.  She was over the maximum allowable weight
and percentage of body fat content.

4.  On 25 June 1999 orders were published ordering her to IADT for
approximately 10 weeks for basic training with a reporting date to Fort
Jackson of 28 June 1999, and a release date of 3 September 1999 (in order
for her to return to school).
5.  Medical reports show that she was seen at Moncrief Army Community
Hospital at Fort Jackson on 17 July 1999 for problems with her foot, on 19
July 1999 for a follow up to her foot pain, and on 28 July 1999 because of
nausea/vomiting.  On 11 August 1999 she was seen because of her complaints
of hip and back pain.  That medical report indicates that she complained of
hip pain for 3-4 days, the onset of which occurred when she fell from her
top bunk.  That report also indicates that she was pending separation under
chapter 11 (Army Regulation 635-200).  On 16 August 1999 she was followed
up for her complaint of hip pain, stating to the attending physician, the
chief of physical therapy, that her pain was no better.  A 19 August 1999
medical report shows that she was seen for a follow up for known femoral
neck stress reaction, that she was currently pending “chapter 11,” and that
she had a release date of         4 September 1999.  The report indicates
that she (should) continue with crutches, that she had (or would have) a
profile, and that a line of duty was initiated.  A 19 August 1999
radiological report of a bone scan of her pelvis and below indicates that
she had a small stress fracture in the left femoral neck and stress
fractures of the 2nd metatarsals.  A 24 August 1999 medical report
indicates that her gait had improved, that she was resolving her stress
fractures, and that she would continue with crutches until she was able to
ambulate.

6.  A 17 August 1999 memorandum from the Medical Department Activity
indicates that because of her medical condition, left hip stress fracture,
she was unable to perform her normal military duties from 16 August 1999 to
23 August 1999 in accordance with the provisions of her profile.  The
memorandum indicates that follow-up care was not needed after her mandatory
release date of 4 September 1999 and that she was medically cleared
effective on 24 August 1999.

7.  A 19 August 1999 line of duty investigation (DA Form 2173) indicates
that the applicant had a stress fracture to her left hip, and that she was
injured on or about 11 August 1999 while performing physical training.  Her
injury was in line of duty.

8.  A 24 August 1999 memorandum prepared by the United States Army
Reserve/Army National Guard liaison NCO (noncommissioned officer) indicates
that the applicant’s release date from active duty would be 27 August 1999,
that she was injured and did not have enough time to recover and complete
basic training by her mandatory release date.

9.  Documents in the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF),
dated  10 August 1999, show that action was initiated to discharge the
applicant from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
chapter 11, for lack of motivation, and that she would be issued an
uncharacterized discharge.  The documents were unsigned and the action was
not processed to completion.

10.  On 11 February 2000 the commanding officer of Headquarters Battery,
     197th Field Artillery Brigade, the applicant’s Army National Guard
commander, requested a waiver to extend her ship date to attend AIT beyond
the maximum 360 days allowable, stating that since she returned from basic
training, she had surgery to correct her injury and had completed physical
therapy.  He stated that she would graduate from high school in the
May/June time frame.  He stated that she was currently awaiting her
civilian doctor’s permission to return to duty.  He stated that she was a
motivated young woman and was looking forward to completing IADT.

11.  On 25 February 2000 the applicant’s commanding officer requested that
the applicant receive incapacitation pay beyond the 6 month statutory
period.  In his request he provide a history of her incapacitation
payments, indicating that she had been receiving payments for the period
beginning on 27 August 1999 through 31 January 2000.  He stated that she
was unable to perform her military duties, but was working at a civilian
job.  He stated that the applicant had injured her left hip during physical
training, was seen by a doctor at Hitchcock Clinic, had an MRI (magnetic
resonance imaging) showing that she needed surgery, and underwent surgery
on 26 October 1999.

12.  On 25 March 2000 the applicant was given a temporary physical profile
serial of 1 1 3 1 1 1 because of her status post operation, left hip stress
fracture.  That profile indicated that she could drill with her unit in
accordance with the profile restrictions.

13.  On 12 August 2000 the applicant requested that she be excused from
annual training for the period 9-26 October 2000 because she would be
attending college.

14.  On 5 November 2000 the applicant was given a temporary profile serial
of     1 1 3 1 1 1 because of her status post hip stress fracture.

15.  A 23 February 2001 medical record (MEPS BOS Form 50) shows that the
applicant was permanently disqualified because of chronic left hip pain and
stress fracture to her left femoral.

16.  Her 23 February 2001 report of medical examination indicates that she
was not qualified for retention because of her stress fracture to her left
femur and her chronic pain to her left hip.  Her physical profile serial
was 3 1 3 1 2 1.
17.  On 26 February 2001 the applicant was discharged from the Army
National Guard of New Hampshire and as a Reserve of the Army.  Her NGB Form
22 shows that she was discharged under the authority of National Guard
Regulation 600-200, paragraph 8-26j(1) because she was medically unfit for
retention.  The character of her service was uncharacterized.

18.  On 2 March 2001 the applicant filed a claim with the VA for
compensation because of her hip bone fracture.  In a 29 March 2002 rating
decision, the VA awarded the applicant a 10 percent service connected
disability rating for status post left hip stress fracture with open
reduction and internal fixation, effective on 3 March 2001.  The percentage
was increased to 100 percent on 12 July 2001 based on surgical treatment
requiring convalescence, and reduced to 10 percent on 1 September 2001.

19.  The applicant was seen and treated on numerous occasions – from 1999
to 2003 by medical personnel at the Hitchcock Clinic in Nashua, New
Hampshire for her left hip femoral neck stress fracture (left hip pain).

      a.  The 3 September 1999 medical report shows that she had full range
of motion of her left hip, but most motions were still painful for her in
the groin.  There was no direct tenderness to palpation.  Her x-ray was
normal.  The attending physician assessed her condition as inferior femoral
neck stress fracture, on the compression side of the bone, not requiring
surgery.  He stated, however, that she needed to continue on crutches until
she was pain free.  That same doctor continued to see and treat her.


      b.  On 14 October 1999 he indicated that her pain had increased.  She
continued to follow up at the Hitchcock Clinic, had an MRI of the left hip,
and subsequently underwent surgery.


      c.  An 11 November 1999 medical report indicates that her wound was
well healed, that her hip rotation was essentially non-painful compared to
preoperatively, and that an x-ray showed that the hardware was in a good
position.


      d.  A 6 January 2000 report shows that her hip rotation was completely
non painful and that she walked around without crutches and without any
pain.  On 3 March 2000 she was seen for a follow up to the pinning of her
left hip, and stated that it still ached from time to time, but the pain
was decreasing.

      e.  On 7 October 2000 the applicant was seen because of a recent
increase in her left hip pain.  The medical report shows that she walked
with a limp, and that she had pain with the rotation of the hip joint.  A 9
April 2001 report shows that she had increased left hip pain and was very
tender over the area around the greater trochanter.

      f.  On 12 July 2001 the hardware was removed from her left hip.
Follow up on 31 July 2001 indicates that she had pain with weight bearing.
Follow up on 28 August 2001 indicates that she was off crutches and was
feeling much better. Her wound was mildly tender.  She had no pain with
rotation.  On 16 October 2001 she indicated that she began to have soreness
over the hip area again.

      g.  On 12 April 2002 she was seen by neurology for her left hip pain.
She indicated that she had been experiencing intense pain involving the top
of the left thigh, and it was sensitive to the touch.  The medical report
indicated that she was on numerous medications.  The doctor indicated that
he suspected that her pain was multifactorial, that there was
musculoskeletal involvement as a component of her pain but also suspected
that she had a neuropathic component as well.  On 16 May 2002 the applicant
indicated that she felt that her hip was on fire.

      h.  The applicant continued to be followed at the Hitchcock Clinic;
however, her pain continued with little relief.

20.  Medical records show that the applicant was seen and treated at the
Manchester VAMC on four occasions in 2001 and 2002 because of her left hip
pain.  A 31 July 2002 medical report shows that the attending physician
stated that his examination and her pain description suggested both a
neuropathic component of pain  (burning, numbness to touch, coolness over
left hip) and trochanteric bursal components of pain (exquisite tenderness
over bursa).  He stated that the applicant was fully functional in
mandatory activities in work and school but significantly impaired in
social and recreational activities by pain.

21.  Medical records show that the applicant was seen and treated on
numerous occasions beginning in November 2003 and continuing through 2004
at the VAMC in Hampton, Virginia, for left hip pain, and swelling status
post stress fracture and surgery.  For instance, a medical report, dated 30
May 2004 indicates that the applicant was injured in “boot camp” when
jumping out of a truck, suffering a stress fracture to her left proximal
femur area.  It indicated that she had surgeries in October 1999 and July
2001, and had multiple injections without relief.  The attending physician
assessed her condition as left hip pain of unknown etiology.  Another
report, dated 20 April 2004 indicates that the applicant had been seen
extensively by her primary care physician, orthopedics and neurosurgery,
and that she had been on numerous medications, without affect.  That report
indicates that she was unable to lie on her left side and was significantly
tender to touch on her left hip area.

22.  On 10 January 2003 she requested to the Army Discharge Review Board
that her uncharacterized discharge be changed to a medical discharge.  The
Army Discharge Review Board returned her request on 12 August 2003, stating
that there was no discharge documentation in her OMPF, and that she could
reapply, but should submit a copy of her separation documents.

23.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from
the National Guard Bureau.  That agency stated, in effect, that separation
for Soldiers in an entry level status will be uncharacterized as required
by appropriate regulations.  That agency recommended disapproval of her
request, stating in effect, that she did not have a condition warranting a
change in the characterization of her discharge.  The National Guard Bureau
also recommended that the applicant submit a rebuttal of her 10 percent
disability determination to the Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA).

24.  In her rebuttal, the applicant commented on her injury and provided a
summary of her military service; her numerous medical appointments and
treatment; her surgeries; medications; and her continuous pain.  She stated
that she was only asking that she be given a medical discharge since she
was permanently disqualified from all military service due to the injury
that occurred while she was on active duty.  She took issue with much that
was stated in the advisory opinion, and stated that the Board has no
control over her VA disability rating.  She stated that she could not see
how her relationship with the VA concerning her disability had any
relevance to the advisory opinion.

25.  Physical evaluation boards are established to evaluate all cases of
physical disability equitability for the Soldier and the Army.  It is a
fact finding board to investigate the nature, cause, degree of severity,
and probable permanency of the disability of Soldiers who are referred to
the board; to evaluate the physical condition of the Soldier against the
physical requirements of the Soldier’s particular office, grade, rank or
rating; to provide a full and fair hearing for the Soldier; and to make
findings and recommendation to establish eligibility of a Soldier to be
separated or retired because of physical disability.

26.  A Soldier may be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board from a troop
program unit status because of an impairment incurred during a previous
period of active duty.  The PEB will decide whether the Soldier is
physically fit of unfit for duty, and if found unfit, will decide whether
the disability was incurred while the Soldier was entitled to basic pay and
in line of duty, and assign a percentage rating if the Soldier otherwise
qualifies.

27.  Army Regulation 635-40, chapter 8, outlines the rules for processing
through the disability system Soldiers of the Reserve component who are on
active duty for a period of less than 30 days or on inactive duty training.
 Paragraph 8-2 states that Soldiers of the Reserve components are eligible
for disability processing from an injury determined to be the proximate
result of performing annual training, active duty special work, active duty
for training, or inactive duty training.

28.  Paragraph 8-6 states that when a commander believes that a Soldier not
on extended active duty is unable to perform his or her duties because of
physical disability, the commander will refer the Soldier for medical
evaluation.  Paragraph 8-6b states in effect, that the medical treatment
facility will forward the medical evaluation board to the Soldier’s unit
commander for disposition under applicable regulations.

29.  Paragraph 8-9 states in pertinent part that a Soldier not on extended
active duty who is unfit because of physical disability will be separated
without benefits if the disability was not incurred or aggravated as the
proximate result of performing annual training, active duty special work,
active duty for training, inactive duty training, etc.

30.  Title 38, United States Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permit the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to award compensation for disabilities
which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service.   An Army
disability rating is intended to compensate an individual for interruption
of a military career after it has been determined that the individual
suffers from an impairment that disqualifies him or her from further
military service.  The VA, which has neither the authority, nor the
responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service,
awards disability ratings to veterans for conditions that it determines
were incurred during military service and subsequently affect the
individual’s civilian employability.   Furthermore, unlike the Army, the VA
can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the
percentage of disability based upon that agency’s examinations and
findings.  The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically
unfitting at the time of discharge, thus compensating the individual for
loss of a career; while the VA may rate any service connected impairment,
including those that are detected after discharge, in order to compensate
the individual for loss of civilian employability.  A common misconception
is that veterans can receive both a military retirement for physical
unfitness and a VA disability pension.  By law, a veteran can normally be
compensated only once for a disability.  If a veteran is receiving a VA
disability pension and the ABCMR corrects the records to show that a
veteran was retired for physical unfitness, the veteran would have to
choose between the VA pension and military retirement.

31.  National Guard Regulation 600-200 provides policy and procedures for
the separation of enlisted personnel.  It provides for types of
administrative discharges/character of service.  A Soldier’s discharge is
characterized as “honorable,” “under honorable conditions,“ or “under other
than honorable conditions.”  However, a Soldier in an entry level status
will normally have his/her discharge characterized as “uncharacterized.”
Entry level status for an Army National Guard Soldier begins upon
enlistment in the Army National Guard.  For Soldiers ordered to IADT for
the split or alternate training option, it terminates 90 days after
beginning Phase II (AIT).  Soldiers completing Phase I (basic training)
remain in entry level status until 90 days after beginning Phase II.

32.  There is no type of discharge characterized as a “Medical Discharge”
the type of discharge the applicant is requesting.  A Soldier may be
discharged or retired because of medical reasons, e.g., medically unfit for
retention, as in the applicant’s case; however, the character of service,
honorable, under honorable conditions, etc., is determined by the Soldier’s
military record which includes the Soldier’s behavior and performance of
duty during the period of service to which the separation pertains.

33.  National Guard Regulation 600-200, paragraph 8-26j(1) states in effect
that Soldiers who are medically unfit for retention will be discharged.
Commanders who suspect that a Soldier may not be medically qualified for
retention will direct the Soldier to report for a complete medical
examination.  Commanders who do
not recommend retention will request the Soldier’s discharge.

34.  Army Regulation 635-5 provides instructions for the preparation and
issuance of the DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from
Active Duty), and states that a DD Form 214 will be prepared for Reserve
component Soldiers completing 90 days or more of continuous active duty, in
effect, stating that a DD Form 214 will not be prepared for those Soldiers
who did not complete 90 days or more of continuous active duty.
Exceptions include those Reserve component Soldiers who complete AIT under
the alternate training program or spit training program and are awarded an
MOS.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant did not complete the second leg of her split training
enlistment option as indicated above; consequently, her discharge from the
Army National Guard and as a Reserve of the Army in February 2001 with an
“Uncharacterized” character of service was appropriate and in accordance
with applicable regulations.

2.  There is no type of discharge, such as a medical discharge; therefore,
her request in this regard is not warranted.  There is, however, a
discharge or retirement, honorable, etc., for medical reasons, with
entitlement to a physical disability rating, provided a member is found
physically unfit by a PEB because of a disability incurred while entitled
to basic pay and in the line of duty.  The applicant was released from
basic training on 27 August 1999 because she was unable to complete that
training prior to her mandatory release date of 3 September 1999 because of
the stress fracture to her left hip.  The applicant was seen and treated on
various occasions while on active duty; however, she was not referred by
medical authorities into the physical disability evaluation system.  On the
contrary, and despite her impairment, on 17 August 1999 medical authorities
determined that she was cleared for release from active duty.

3.  Subsequent to her release from active duty, the applicant was unable to
perform her military duties and was awarded incapacitation pay.  She was,
however, able to work in her civilian job as indicated in her commanding
officer’s February 2000 request for continuation of incapacitation pay.
Her March 2000 physical profile report indicates that she could drill with
her unit in accordance with the limitations of her profile.  In August of
that year the applicant requested to be excused from annual training, not
because of her physical condition; but because of her intention to attend
college.

4.  The medical evidence indicates that both before and after her discharge
from the Army National Guard in February 2001, the degree of her pain was
diverse, that is, at times she was in no pain whatsoever, but on other
occasions her pain was extreme.  Nonetheless, the Army National Guard
discharged her in February 2001 because of her medical condition.

5.  The Board takes note of the advisory opinion from the National Guard
Bureau and agrees with its recommendation that a change to the
characterization of the applicant’s discharge is not warranted.  The Board
also agrees with the applicant in her rebuttal to that opinion, in that her
body fat content, and her relationship to the VA, as voiced by the National
Guard Bureau, has no relevance to her case.

6.  Subsequent to her discharge from the Army National Guard, the VA has
awarded her a 10 percent disability rating for her hip stress fracture, and
she is continuing to be followed by the VA.

7.  The applicant’s release from active duty in August 1999 was proper, and
in view of her mandatory release date of 3 September 1999, was warranted.
Medical authorities determined that she was cleared for release.  She had
no medical condition that warranted physical disability processing.

8.  Therefore, the applicant’s request for physical disability retirement
or separation is not granted.  Her request to correct her record to show
that she received a medical discharge is inappropriate, and not warranted.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___PS___  __YM___  __LH____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.





                                  _______Paul Smith_________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040010024                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050830                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |108.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]