RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        24 July 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060015375


      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.

|     |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano          |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Loretta D. Gulley             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John Infante                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Rose M. Lys                   |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. James R. 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, in effect, that he be considered for medical
retirement.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he tore a ligament while taking a
Physical Fitness (correctly known as the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT))
test but the colonel who could verify that it occurred in the line of duty
(LOD) was deployed.  The applicant continues to state, in effect, that the
colonel returned this year, signed the LOD, but he had already attended the
Military Occupational Specialty Medical Retention Board (MMRB).

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of this
application:

      a.  DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile) dated 21 November 2004,

      b.  Memorandum from Headquarters, United States Army 90th Regional
Command, Captain Maurice Britt, United Army Reserve Center, North Little
Rock, Arkansas, dated 15 February 2002,

      c.  DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceeding), dated
2 June 2005,

   d. Statement from applicant dated 9 June 2005,

   e. Memorandum from the U.S. Physical Evaluation Board, Fort Sam
Houston, Texas, dated 10 June 2005,

   f. DA Form 2173 (Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status),
dated 20 August 2005 and,

   g. Orders Number 06-196-00016, Headquarters, Army Reserve Medical
Command, dated 15 July 2006.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 12 August 2006, the date of his discharge.  The
application was signed on 9 August 2006 and received on 2 November 2006.




2.  The applicant's record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army on
22 March 1988 and was honorably discharged from active duty on 5 December
1991.  He enlisted in the United States Army Reserves (USAR) on 16 October
1997.  He was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) Medical
Logistics (91J).  The highest rank he attained while serving in the USAR
was Staff Sergeant (SSG/E-6).

3.  Item 1 (Medical Condition) of the DA Form 3349, dated 8 January 2005,
shows that the applicant was awarded a permanent profile for a chronic left
knee S/P ACL *2 (anterior cruciate ligament, two times) and a meniscus
repair.
Item 3 (temporary/permanent) shows that the applicant received a “3” in the
“L” (lower extremity) section of the PUHLES.

4.  The memorandum from Headquarters, United States Army 90th Regional
Command, Captain Maurice L. Britt, United States Army Reserve Center, North
Little Rock, Arkansas, Subject: Summary MOS/Medical Retention Proceedings,
dated 15 February 2005, shows that a Medical Retention Board (MMRB)
convened on 12 February 2005 to evaluate the applicant and found that his
permanent profile precluded satisfactory performance of his primary MOS
physical requirements in a worldwide field environment.  The MMRB found
that the limitations imposed by his physical profile are prohibitive and
require further evaluation by the Physical Disability Evaluation System
(PDES).

5.  Item 8b (Disability Description) of the applicant’s DA Form 199, dated
2 June 2005 and approved on 15 June 2005, states that the applicant was
found to be physically unfit.  The applicant’s profile for knee pain
following ACL repair two times, does not permit the wear of combat load
equipment.  The PEB adjudicated the case as nonduty related in accordance
with the provisions of DOD Directive 1332.18, paragraph 18 and DoDI
1332.38, part II, paragraph E33.P2.

6.  On 9 June 2005, the applicant rebutted the findings of the PEB.  The
applicant states that he had two ACL repairs and that his meniscus was torn
during an Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT).

7.  On 10 June 2005, the U.S. Army Physical Evaluation Board reviewed the
applicant’s rebuttal and did not change the original findings of the PEB.
The PEB found that no new objective medical or performance evidence was
submitted that would warrant any change in the decision previously
rendered.




8.  Item 8 (Hour and Date Admitted) of the DA Form 2173, dated 20 August
2005, states that the applicant was seen at the Humble Northwest Medical
Center on 4 September 2000, for an injury that occurred on 2 April 2000.
Item 11 (Medical Opinion) states that the applicant was injured in the line
of duty during the April 2000 APFT.  Item 30 (Details of Accident –
Remarks) shows “Soldier stated he was performing an APFT and during the
graded 2 mile run the Soldier fell injuring his left knee”.

9.  Orders Number 06-196-00016, Headquarters, Army Reserve Medical Command,
Pinellas Park, Florida, dated 15 July 2006, shows that the applicant was
honorably discharged on 12 August 2006 in accordance with Army Regulation
135-178.

10.  Chapter 3 (Retention Medical Fitness Standards) of Army Regulation
40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), as amended, provides the standards
for medical fitness for retention and separation, including retirement.
Soldiers with medical conditions listed in this chapter should be referred
for disability processing.

11.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement,
or Separation) provides that the medical treatment facility commander with
the primary care responsibility will evaluate those referred to him and
will, if it appears as though the member is not medically qualified to
perform duty or fails to meet retention criteria, refer the member to a
medical evaluation board.  Those members who do not meet medical retention
standards will be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for a
determination of whether they are able to perform the duties of their grade
and military specialty with the medically disqualifying condition.

12.  Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army Physical Disability
Evaluation System (PDES) according to the provisions of Chapter 61, Title
10, United States Code (10 USC 61) and Department of Defense Directive
(DODD) 1332.18.  It 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.  If a Soldier is found unfit
because of physical disability, the regulation provides for disposition of
the Soldier according to applicable laws and regulations.

13.  Army Regulation 135-178 prescribes the policies for the separation of
enlisted Soldiers from the Reserve Components.  Chapter 12 of this
regulation provides for separation when it has been determined that an
enlisted Soldier is no longer qualified for retention by reason of medical
unfitness.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends, in effect, that he would like to be considered
for medical retirement.

2.  The evidence of record shows that, as directed by his commander, the
applicant was medically evaluated on 2 June 2005.  Evidence shows that he
was found to be unfit because of his physical profile following two ACL
repairs and not being permitted to wear combat load.

3.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant’s case was adjudicated
as a non-duty related cased in accordance with pertinent DOD directives and
instructions.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to a disability
retirement.

4.  The evidence of records shows that although the applicant submitted a
LOD report, it stated that the applicant was seen in September 2000 for an
injury that allegedly occurred in April 2000 and was signed and dated in
August 2005.  The LOD did not provide eye witness account nor did the
applicant submit evidence, other than the Soldier stating that the injuries
occurred during the admission of the APFT.

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

6.  Evidence of record shows that the permanent orders were published
releasing the applicant from the USAR ready reserves.  Therefore, the
applicant is not authorized to have his military records corrected to
reflect a disability retirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

_______  _________  ________  PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JI  ___  ___RML_  ___JRH _  DENY APPLICATION




BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that 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.




                                          __John Infante_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON







                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060015375                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/07/024                             |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |MS. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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