BOARD DATE:	  1 March 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100018234 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests correction of her narrative reason for separation so she may receive Post 9/11 MGIB benefits.  

2.  The applicant states she was discharged from the Regular Army for a condition - not a disability.  However, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) categorized her injury as service-connected and awarded her 10% disability compensation.  

3.  The applicant provides:

* her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* a VA Form 22-1990 (Application for VA Education Benefits)
* a DD Form 2697 (Report of Medical Assessment)
* a DD Form 2808 (Report of Medical Examination)
* a DD Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History)
* a Fit For Duty Evaluation Memorandum
* several Standard Forms (SF) 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care)
* a photograph of a foot
* a Surgery Information Sheet
* a Florida Orthopedic Institute Medical Report

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years and
34 weeks on 17 June 2008.  She completed basic combat training at Fort Jackson, SC, and she was reassigned to Fort Huachuca, AZ, for completion of advanced individual training (AIT). 

2.  On 14 August 2008, she injured her right ankle after jumping from a truck.  She complained of pain and swelling and she was placed in splint and counseled on the use of crutches.  She was discharged back to her unit with no physical profile.  Over the next few days/weeks, she reported back to the clinic for follow- up.  She was diagnosed with right ankle sprain; no fracture. 

3.  Upon arrival at Fort Huachuca, AZ, she continued to complain of right ankle pain.  She was again diagnosed with swelling/sprain but without fracture or discoloration. 

4.  On 9 January 2009, she again complained of ankle pain.  She underwent a bone scan that concluded no fracture.  She was released back to her AIT unit with no profile.

5.  On 5 February 2009, a military physician submitted a fit for duty memorandum and recommended her immediate discharge for a medical complaint that interfered with her duty performance and that had failed to improve.  He stated: 

	a.  The applicant had multiple visits to the student clinic and physical therapy for right ankle pain precipitated by a fall during basic combat training.  She received a thorough medical evaluation and an overly generous recovery time with no claimed improvement.

	b.  Her physical therapy plan included release to unlimited activities prior to 25 December 2008 but she continued to complain of right ankle pain.  Radiographs demonstrated no bony or anatomic abnormalities aside from soft tissue swelling.  

6.  On 9 February 2009, she underwent a medical evaluation.  She stated that she had previously experienced chronic ankle pain but she stated it was resolved.  The military physician indicated the applicant was not on any physical profile and recommended her discharge.

7.  On 9 February 2009, she underwent a mental status evaluation and she was found not to have suffered from any psychiatric disease, defect, or personality disorder that would have caused significant defect in judgment.  She was psychiatrically cleared for any action by her chain of command. 

8.  On 25 February 2009, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 5-17, by reason of other physical and/or mental medical conditions not compatible with military service.

9.  On 25 February 2009, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation memorandum, consulted with legal counsel, and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effect; of the rights available to her and the effect of any action taken by her in waiving her rights; and the type of discharge and its effect on further enlistment or reenlistment.  The applicant understood that she could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions was issued to her and that she could be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under Federal and State laws. 

10.  On 25 February 2009, the applicant’s immediate commander initiated separation action against the applicant in accordance with Army Regulation
635-200, paragraph 5-17, for other designated physical and/or mental conditions. 

11.  On 4 March 2009, consistent with the chain of command's recommendation and the Staff Judge Advocate's review for legal sufficiency, the separation authority approved the proposed separation action against the applicant in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17, and directed she receive an honorable discharge.  On 11 March 2009, the applicant was accordingly discharged. 

12.  The DD Form 214 she was issued shows she was discharged for a condition - not a disability with an honorable character of service.  This form further confirms she completed 8 months and 25 days of creditable active military service.  Item 26 (Separation Code) of this form shows the entry "JFV" and item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) shows the entry "Condition - Not a Disability." 

13.  She submitted:

* A civilian medical report, dated April 2009 which shows she was counseled regarding surgery to her subluxating peroneal tendons
* A medical evaluation, dated 3 February 2009, that diagnosed her with ankle joint pain
* An application for VA education benefits

14.  Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 5-17 states, in pertinent part, that commanders who are special court-martial convening authorities may approve separation 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 duty.  A recommendation for separation must be supported by documentation confirming the existence of the physical or mental condition.  Members may be separated for physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability, sufficiently severe that the Soldier's ability to effectively perform military duties is significantly impaired.  Members separated under this provision of the regulation will be awarded a character of service of honorable, under honorable conditions, or an uncharacterized description of service if in entry-level status.

15.  Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) provides information on medical fitness standards for induction, enlistment, appointment, retention, and related policies and procedures.  Chapter 3 gives the various medical conditions and physical defects which may render a Soldier unfit for further military service and which fall below the standards required for the individuals in paragraph 3–2.  These medical conditions and physical defects, individually or in combination, are those that significantly limit or interfere with the Soldier’s performance of their duties or may compromise or aggravate the Soldier’s health or well-being if they were to remain in the military Service.  Paragraphs 3-13 (lower extremities) and 3-14 (miscellaneous conditions of the extremities) do not list ankle pain as a medical condition or physical defect.

16.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes) states that the Separation Program Designator (SPD) codes are three-character alphabetic combinations which identify reasons for and types of separation from active service.  The "JFV" SPD code is the correct code for Soldiers separating under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant suffered from chronic ankle pain, a medical condition not amounting to a physical disability that interfered with the 

performance of her duties.  She had multiple visits to the medical clinic and physical therapy and she received a thorough medical evaluation and an overly generous recovery time with no claimed improvement.  Accordingly, her chain of command initiated separation action against her. 

2.  Various medical conditions related to a Soldier's extremities may cause referral to a medical evaluation board as described in paragraphs 3-13 and 3-14 of Army Regulation 40-501.  However, in the applicant's case, ankle pain is not listed as a condition which would have necessitated her referral to a medical board.  

3.  Her narrative reason for separation was assigned based on the fact that she was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph
5-17, due to a medical condition - not a disability.  Absent this condition, there was no fundamental reason to process the applicant for discharge.  Therefore, the only valid narrative reason for separation permitted under this paragraph is "Condition - Not a Disability" and the appropriate separation code associated with this discharge is "JFV."  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Her narrative reason for separation is correctly shown on her DD Form 214 and she has provided insufficient evidence to warrant changing this reason.

3.  The Army Board for Corrections of Military Records (ABCMR) does not grant requests for change of narrative reason for separation solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for veteran benefits.  Every case is individually decided based upon its merits when an applicant requests a change in his or her reason for separation.  Additionally, the granting of veteran benefits is not within the purview of the ABCMR.  Any questions regarding eligibility for such benefits should be addressed to the VA.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____x_  ___x_____  ___x_____  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.



      __________x_____________
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100018234



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100018234



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1