RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  29 March 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060012837 


	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. Gerard W. Schwartz

Acting Director

Mrs. Victoria A. Donaldson

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Lester Echols 

Chairperson

Ms. Linda M. Barker

Member

Mr. Michael J. Flynn

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 her reason for discharge be changed to medical discharge. 

2.  The applicant states that she tried to serve but "just couldn't" and that she had medical and physical problems that impaired her ability to serve.  She concludes that she should have received a medical discharge because she was not medically qualified to serve.

3.  The applicant provides her application to the Army Discharge Review Board and attachments in support of this application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records show the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 September 2004 in the rank of private first class/pay grade E-3.

2.  The applicant's records contain a Fort Lee Sick Call Slip, dated 17 January 2005, which shows that her previously diagnosed stress fracture was re-evaluated and based on that exam she was precluded from the following activities: running, marching, jumping, push-ups, and lower body physical training.  

3.  The applicant's records contain an Individual Sick Slip, dated 28 March 2005, which shows that she was returned to full duty and was able to take the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT).

4.  The applicant's records contain an Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard which shows the results of three separate APFTs identified as 30 October 2004 (diagnostic), 14 November 2004 (Record), and 21 November 2004 (Record).  The two for record tests show that the applicant failed to meet the minimum 60 points required in each event in order to achieve a passing score.

5.  The applicant's records contain a second Army Physical Fitness Scorecard which shows that on 18 January 2005, she did not successfully complete the run portion of the APFT.  This form also shows that on 25 January 2005, the applicant did not successfully complete the sit-up or the run portion of the APFT and on 25 February 2005 she did not successfully complete the sit-up or the run portion of the APFT.  All three tests identified on this form show that the applicant did not pass the test requirements. 

6.  The applicant's records contain a third Army Physical Fitness Scorecard which shows that on 29 March 2005, she did not successfully complete the run portion of the APFT.  This form also shows that on 1 April 2005, the applicant did not successfully complete the sit-up or the run portion of the APFT.

7.  Records show the applicant underwent a separation medical physical on 5 April 2005.  The findings show that the applicant was treated for shin splints and a stress fracture.  This form also shows that the applicant was found qualified for military service.

8.  A DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form), dated 6 April 2005, shows that the applicant received counseling for failure to obtain the minimum requirement for the APFT conducted on 25 February 2005 which is 60 points in each event.  This form further shows that the applicant was informed that she would be retrained and scheduled to retake the APFT.

9.  A DA Form 4856, dated 6 April 2005, shows that the applicant received counseling for failure to obtain the minimum requirement for the APFT conducted on 29 March 2005 which is 60 points in each event.  This form further shows that the applicant was informed that she would be retrained and scheduled to retake the APFT.

10.  A DA Form 4856, dated 6 April 2005, shows that the applicant received counseling for failure to obtain the minimum requirement for the APFT conducted on 1 April 2005 which is 60 points in each event.  This form further shows that the applicant was informed that she would be retrained and scheduled to retake the APFT.

11.  A DA Form 4856 , dated 6 April 2005, shows that the applicant received counseling for failure to obtain the minimum requirement for the APFT conducted on 1 April 2005 which is 60 points in each event.  This form further shows that the applicant was informed that she would be scheduled for Part 1 and Part 2 Physical for chapter and that she had been given three opportunities to pass the APFT.

12.  A DA Form 4856, dated 27 April 2005, shows that the applicant was counseled based on the fact that she was being separated under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 for unsatisfactory performance-APFT failure.



13.  On 7 April 2005, the applicant was notified of the pending separation under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200.  She acknowledged that she was advised of her rights by counsel waived consideration and personal appearance by an administrative separation board, and elected not to submit comments on her behalf.

14.  On 21 April 2005, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge and directed that she receive an honorable discharge.  On 2 May 2005, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 she was issued confirms he completed a total of 7 months and 24 days of creditable active military.  This form further shows the narrative reason for separation was physical standards and the character of service was honorable.

15.  15.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) 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 or her office, grade, rank, or rating.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.  Separation by reason of disability requires processing through the PDES.  

16.  Chapter 4 of the same regulation contains guidance on processing through the PDES, which includes the convening of a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) to document a Soldier's medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by the soldier's status.  If the MEB determines a Soldier does not meet retention standards, the case will be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  The PEB evaluates all cases of physical disability equitably for the Soldier and the Army.  

17.  The PEB also investigates the nature, cause, degree of severity, and probable permanency of the disability of soldiers whose cases are referred to the board.  It also evaluates the physical condition of the Soldier against the physical requirements of the Soldier's particular office, grade, rank, or rating.  Finally, it makes findings and recommendations required by law to establish the eligibility of a Soldier to be separated or retired because of physical disability.

18.  Title 38, United States Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.  The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.  The VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings.  However, these changes do not call into question the application of the fitness standards and the disability ratings assigned by proper military medical authorities during the applicant’s processing through the Army PDES. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that her discharge should be changed to show she was discharged based on medical reasons was carefully considered and determined to be without merit.

2.  The applicant's records clearly show that she was placed on a medical profile for shin splints and a stress fracture.  These records further show that she was treated on numerous occasions for these medical issues.  However, her military medical records show that she was found fit for military service and there was no basis to submit her for a medical or physical evaluation board.

3.  The applicant failed numerous APFTs and was provided additional guidance and support after each failure.  The applicant failed to achieve a passing score on any of the APFTs that she took and as a result was separated in accordance with appropriate Army Regulations.

4.  Based on the foregoing, there is no basis to amend the applicant's records to show that she was discharged for medical reasons.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__LE__ _  _MJF___  __LMB___  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.





___Lester Echols _____
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
YYYYMMDD
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.