RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  24 April 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070009044 


	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.  




Director



Analyst


      The following members, a quorum, were present:




Chairperson



Member



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 her honorable discharge be changed to reflect that she was discharged by reason of physical disability that was in the line of duty. 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she was discharged for medical reasons determined to be not in the line of duty and in fact should be characterized as a line of duty medical discharge.  She goes on to state that her unit administrator filed the wrong paperwork at the time she was scheduled for a medical evaluation and a line of duty determination was never accomplished on her injury.  She further states that she has been diagnosed as having Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Major Depressive Disorder, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder, which are all directly related to her service in the military. 

3.  The applicant provides military and civilian medical records dated from 24 October 2003 to 19 May 2005 and copies of electronic mail (E-mail) traffic between the applicant, her unit administrator, and the Reserve/National Guard Patient Affairs Branch.  

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s records, though somewhat incomplete, show that she enlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) in Cleveland, Ohio on 24 February 2003 for a period of 8 years, training as a psychological operations specialist, enrollment in the Montgomery GI Bill and the Student Loan Repayment Program, and a cash enlistment bonus.  Her contract specified that she would attend basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and her advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.   

2.  The applicant was ordered to initial active duty for training (IADT) at Fort Jackson on 3 July 2003.  She completed her basic training and was transferred to Fort Bragg to undergo her AIT.   

3.  According to the documents submitted by the applicant, she was treated at Womack Army Medical Center (Clark Health Clinic) on 24 October 2003 for complaints of pain to the right foot after stepping in a hole while on a ruck march.

4.  The applicant was again seen on 28 October, 17 November, 9 December 2003 and 6 January 2004.  On her last visit she complained of a 2 month history 
of bilateral hip pain and left hallux (the great toe, or first digit of the foot) pain.  The examining physician suspected a stress fracture and ordered bone scans.  However, the bone scans essentially revealed no abnormalities.
 
5.  The applicant was released from IADT on 22 January 2004 and was returned to her unit.  However, her record is void of a report of separation (DD Form 214) for her IADT.

6.  The documents provided by the applicant indicate that on 20 July 2004, the applicant began seeking civilian medical (orthopedic) treatment for her left foot, left hip, and knee pain. 

7.  On 2 February 2005, the attending orthopedist authored a letter indicating that he and his associates were having a great deal of difficulty trying to resolve the applicant’s ongoing complaints of left hip and knee pain.  He went on to state that a thorough orthopedic evaluation led him to believe that he was dealing with chronic tendinitis and/or overuse syndrome.  He also stated that he had nothing else to offer the applicant and he had explained to her that her complaints were not all that uncommon when dealing with individuals who are involved in very strenuous activities.  Furthermore, he believed with a high degree of medical certainty that it was in the patient’s best interest to be discharged from the military. 

8.  On 19 May 2005, a licensed independent social worker authored a letter indicating that the applicant was assessed at a counseling center on 15 March 2005 and was diagnosed as having:

	Axis I: PTSD 309-81
	           Major Depressive Disorder 296.22
		Generalized Anxiety Disorder 300.02

	Axis II: Deferred

	Axis III: status post hip/leg/foot pain related to recent fracture while in boot                         camp.

	Axis IV: Severe

	Axis V: GAF: 50

The social worker also opined that her PTSD, major depressive disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder symptoms are all directly related to her experience in the military.

9.  Although not fully explained in the available records, it appears that the applicant’s commander requested that a fitness for duty evaluation be performed on the applicant.

10.  On 27 September 2005, a fitness for duty evaluation was conducted at Ireland Army Community Hospital, Fort Knox, Kentucky.  The evaluation determined that the applicant was unfit for duty – Non-Active Duty (Line of Duty –No) – Returned to unit for administrative processing.

11.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s administrative discharge are not present in the available records; however, on 4 May 2006, orders were published by the Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command at Fort Bragg, which honorably discharged the applicant from the USAR under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-178.  The code used to discharge the applicant was “LDFH” (Involuntary discharge due to a physical condition, not a disability).

12.  In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the Human Resources Command – Alexandria (HRC-Alex) which opines, in effect, that a fitness for duty evaluation found the applicant unfit for duty due to anxiety and depressive issues, which apparently existed prior to service (EPTS) and no further medical assistance could be provided.  She was properly discharged from the Reserve Component and because she was not on active duty at the time, she was only entitled to receive discharge orders.  The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment and to date, no response has been received by the staff of the Board.  

13.  The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III-R) provides that a multiaxial evaluation requires that every case be assessed on several “axes,” each which refers to a different class of information.  Each person is evaluated on each of these axes:
	Axis I   --  Clinical Syndromes and V Codes
	Axis II  --   Developmental Disorders and Personality Disorders
	Axis III --   Physical Disorders and Conditions
	Axis IV --   Severity of Psychological Stressors
	Axis V  --   Global Assessment of Functioning

(V Codes are conditions not attributable to a mental disorder)
14.  Army Regulation 635-40, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation, provides that the mere presence of an impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the member may reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, rank, grade or rating. 

15.  Title 38, United States Code, sections 310 and 331, 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.  Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency.

16.  There is a difference between the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Army disability systems.  The Army’s determination of a Soldier’s physical fitness or unfitness is a factual finding based upon the individual’s ability to perform the duties of his or her grade, rank or rating.  The VA may find a Soldier unfit by reason of service-connected disability and may even initially assign a higher rating.  The VA’s ratings are based upon an individual’s ability to gain employment as a civilian and may fluctuate within a period of time depending on the changes in the disability.

17.  Army Regulation 135-178, Army National Guard and USAR Enlisted Administrative Separations, provides in paragraph 6-7 that the separation authority may approve discharge under this paragraph on the basis of other physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability that potentially interfere with assignment to or performance of military duty.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant has not provided, and the evidence of record does not contain, the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s administrative discharge. Therefore, it must be presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary that the applicant’s administrative discharge was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations with no violations of any of the applicant’s rights.    

2.  It must also be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that at the time the applicant underwent a fitness for duty evaluation, that medical personnel properly determined that her condition did not warrant consideration under the Physical Disability Evaluation System and/or referral to a medical and/or physical evaluation board.  Accordingly, it appears that she was properly discharged under administrative procedures in accordance with the applicable regulations.    

3.  The applicant has shown through the evidence submitted with her application that she was injured during AIT and that she received treatment for her injuries.  However, it would be inappropriate to attempt to second-guess medical personnel who have indicated that there is no longer any apparent injury, without more substantiating evidence.

4.  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.         

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__XXX __  __XXX__  __XXX__   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.




      ___        XXX                ___
                CHAIRPERSON
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20070009044



6


DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
1901 SOUTH BELL STREET, 2ND FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA  22202-4508