RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  1 March 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060011336 


	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

Ms. Wanda L. Waller

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Thomas Ray

Chairperson

Mr. Jeffrey Redmann

Member

Mr. James Hastie

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.  The applicant requests that item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed to “Medical Reasons.”  She also requests, in effect, a medical discharge. 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she was not fairly discharged with the narrative reason for separation of “Weight Control Failure.”  She states that she gained weight because of a medical condition and the medication she was taking for this medical condition.  She states that her birth control shots caused her to gain weight.  She further states that all of her medical conditions that she had while on active duty are listed in the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) letter, dated 9 June 2006, she provided with her application.   

3.  The applicant provides a copy of her DD Form 214; discharge orders; a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States); documentation from the DVA; service personnel records; and service medical records. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted on 22 May 1990 and trained as a light wheel vehicle mechanic.  

2.  The applicant provided a service medical record, dated 5 December 1995, which shows she was taking birth control shots (depo-provera).  Medical evidence of record shows that weight gain is a side effect of depo-provera.

3.  Records show the applicant attended a weight control class in 1997.

4.  Records show the applicant had a hysterectomy in 1998.

5.  On 29 July 2003, the applicant was issued a permanent profile of 112111 for bilateral hip pain. 

6.  The applicant’s DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report) covering the period March 2003 to November 2003 shows her competence, leadership, training, and responsibility and accountability were rated “success.”  Her physical fitness and military bearing was rated “Needs Improvement (Some).”  

7.  On 17 February 2004, the applicant was entered into a Weight Control Program. 
8.  The applicant provided an undated memorandum for record from Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment, 168th Medical Battalion (Area Support) which stated that the cause of her overweight condition was not due to a medical condition.  It also stated that the applicant’s medication was changed to a new medication less likely to cause weight gain.

9.  The applicant provided a memorandum, dated 15 April 2004, from a physician which stated that the cause of her overweight condition was not due to a medical condition.  There is no mention of medications.

10.  The applicant provided a DD Form 689 (Individual Sick Slip), dated 15 April 2004, which states that she took medications in 2003 and 2004 that could contribute to weight gain and that her profiles restricting activity could also contribute to being overweight.

11.  On 18 May 2004, the applicant was issued a permanent profile of 123111 for chronic hip pain and arthritic pain in knees and shoulders. 

12.  On 1 June 2004, the applicant was issued a permanent profile of 123111 for chronic hip pain, knee pain (degenerative joint disease (JDJ)), and arthritic shoulder pain. 

13.  On 22 July 2004, the applicant’s unit commander initiated separation proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 18, for failure to meet body fat standards.  He based his recommendation for separation on the applicant’s failure to make satisfactory progress in the Army Weight Control Program on three consecutive monthly weigh-ins.  

14.  On 26 July 2004, after consulting with counsel, the applicant waived consideration of her case by an administrative separation board and elected not to submit a statement on her behalf.

15.  The separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant be furnished an honorable discharge.

16.  The applicant’s DA Form 2166-8 covering the period December 2003 to September 2004 shows her competence, training, and responsibility and accountability were rated “success.”  Her leadership was rated “Needs Improvement (Some)” and the comments from this block included:  “was relieved of leadership responsibilities for failure to comply with Army height/weight standards,” “is not present for duty during significant portions of the duty week due to medical appointments,” and “is unable to effectively lead Soldiers in a field or garrison environment due to physical limitations.”  Her physical fitness and military bearing was rated “Needs Improvement (Much)” with a comment that her profile does hinder her job performance.  

17.  On 6 October 2004, the applicant was discharged with an honorable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 18, for weight control failure.  She had completed 14 years, 4 months, and 15 days of total active service.

18.  There is no evidence in the available records which show the applicant was referred by a Military Treatment Facility (MTF) to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).

19.  In support of her claim, the applicant provided a letter, dated 9 June 2006, which shows the DVA increased service connected disability compensation for a left foot peripheral neuropathy, plantar fasciitis, hallux valgus post bunionectomy, DJD of the first metatarsal phalangeal joint with loss of motion of the ankle (30 percent) and for a right foot peripheral neuropathy, plantar fasciitis, hallux valgus post bunionectomy, with loss of motion of the ankle (20 percent).  She also provided a DVA Rating decision, dated 19 May 2006, which shows that service connected disability compensation was granted for vaginal hysterectomy; adjustment disorder; diabetes mellitus; DJD right shoulder; right knee DJD; left knee retropatellar pain syndrome; bilateral greater trochanter bursitis; left should tendonitis; compression fracture with thoracic strain and left rhomboid strain; hypothyroidism; bilateral plantar faciitis; right great toe bunionectomy; left great toe bunioniectomy; and scar, status post breast reduction.  Her overall rating was increased to 90 percent.    

20.  The applicant provided an undated information paper on eight medications which included the possible side effects of each.  One medication, Sertraline (Zoloft), states that unusual or rapid weight gain is a highly unlikely but very serious side effect.  One medication, citalopram, states that weight changes is a highly unlikely but very serious side effect. 

21.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 18 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for failure to meet body fat standards.  In pertinent part, chapter 18 provides that Soldiers who fail to meet the body fat standards set forth in Army Regulation 600-9 shall be separated under this provision when it is the sole basis for separation.  The regulation provides that the Soldier must be given a reasonable opportunity to comply with and meet the body fat standards.  The regulation also provides that if no medical condition exists and if the individual fails to make satisfactory progress in the program after a period of six months, then initiation of separation or imposition of a bar to reenlistment is required.  The service of Soldiers separated under this chapter will be characterized as honorable.

22.  Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability.  Paragraph 4-7 (Referral by commanders of MTFs) of this regulation states that commanders of MTFs who are treating Soldiers in an assigned, attached, or outpatient status may initiate action to evaluate the Soldier’s physical ability to perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. 

23.  Chapter 7 (Physical Profiling) of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) provides that the basic purpose of the physical profile serial system is to provide an index to the overall functional capacity of an individual and is used to assist the unit commander and personnel officer in their determination of what duty assignments the individual is capable of performing, and if reclassification action is warranted.  Four numerical designations (1-4) are used to reflect different levels of functional capacity in six factors (PULHES): P-physical capacity or stamina, U-upper extremities, L-lower extremities, H-hearing and ears, E-eyes, and S-psychiatric.  Numerical designator "1" under all factors indicates that an individual is considered to possess a high level of medical fitness and, consequently, is medically fit for any military assignment.  Numerical designators "2" and "3" indicate that an individual has a medical condition or physical defect which requires certain restrictions in assignment within which the individual is physically capable of performing military duty.  The individual should receive assignments commensurate with his or her functional capacity.  

24.  Until certain provisions of the law were changed in fiscal year 2004, a common misconception was that veterans could receive both a military retirement for physical unfitness and a VA disability pension.  Under the law prior to 2004, a veteran could only be compensated once for a disability.  If a veteran was receiving a VA disability pension and the Board corrected the records to show the veteran was retired for physical unfitness, the veteran would have had to have chosen between the VA pension and military retirement.  The new law does not apply to disability retirees with less than 20 years of service. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that she gained weight because of a medical condition and the medication she was taking for this medical condition was noted.  Notwithstanding the DD Form 689 provided by the applicant which states that her medications in 2003/2004 and her profiles could have contributed to weight gain and being overweight, two memorandums provided by the applicant state that her overweight condition was not due to a medical condition.  
2.  The numerous medical conditions for which the applicant is receiving service connected disability compensation were noted.  However, the DVA does not fall under the purview of this Board or the Department of Defense.  The DVA, operating under its own policies and regulations, assigns disability ratings as it sees fit.

3.  Although the applicant’s last DA Form 2166-8 indicated her profile hindered her job performance, the comments highly suggested it hindered her job performance because she was not present for duty due to her medical appointments, not because she was physically incapable of performing her job. 

4.  The medical evidence of record supports the applicant’s contention that her birth control shots might have caused her to gain weight in 1995/1996.  However, evidence of record shows that she had a hysterectomy in 1998, and she was separated in 2004. 

5.  It appears the applicant was being frequently treated by the MTF, yet, there is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant was referred by the MTF to a MEB.  The MTF commander could have done so had he believed the applicant was physically unfit to perform her duties.   There is also insufficient evidence of record to show she was ever medically unfit to perform her duties.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting a medical discharge. 

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

TR_____  __JR____  __JH____  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.

__Thomas Ray__________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070011336
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20070301
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
110.0200
2.
108.0000
3.

4.

5.

6.