IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  5 January 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110002359 


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 reinstatement on active duty followed by physical disability processing.

2.  The applicant states all Soldiers with physical profiles of 3 or 4 in any of the 6 functional capacity factors will appear before a Military Occupational Specialty/ Medical Retention Board (MMRB).  This did not occur in her case.

3.  The applicant continues her podiatrist ordered her to cease separation processing and await guidance for a medical board.  The doctor requested extension of her separation date in order to complete processing required by Army Regulation 600-60 (Physical Performance Evaluation System).  Her separation was not delayed and she was subsequently discharged on
11 December 2010.  She was approved for a medical evaluation board (MEB) on 17 December 2010.

4.  The applicant provides:

* her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* a Standard Form (SF) 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care), dated 21 October 2010
* a memorandum from Tripler Army Medical Center (TAMC), HI, Orthopaedic/Podiatry Surgery Service, dated 21 October 2010
* a DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile), dated 16 December 2010



CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  With prior U.S. Army Reserve and Regular Army (RA) enlisted service, the applicant was appointed as an RA officer.  She served on active duty as an officer for 8 years, 11 months, and 28 days from 14 December 2001 through 11 December 2010.  The highest rank/grade she attained was captain (CPT)/
O-3.

2.  Orders 081-0022, issued by the Directorate of Human Resources, U.S. Army Garrison-Hawaii, Schofield Barracks, HI, dated 22 March 2010, reassigned the applicant to the U.S. Army Transition Center for transition processing with a reporting date of 28 October 2010.  Her discharge date was established as
11 December 2010.

3.  The applicant's interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS) file does not contain information pertaining to her discharge; however, her DD Form 214 shows she was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), paragraph 3-5 (Rules for processing unqualified resignation).

4.  The applicant provided an SF 600, dated 21 October 2010.  The document indicates she had a medical history of bilateral plantar faciitis, heel bursitis, and an equinus deformity – the limited upward bending motion of the ankle joint which occurs due to tightness in the Achilles tendon or calf muscles and characterized by tiptoe walking.  The SF 600 states the applicant indicated she was told an MEB was required.

5.  The applicant provided a 21 October 2010 memorandum from a podiatrist requesting an adjustment in the applicant's discharge date from 28 October 2010 to 8 November 2010 [sic] "in order to complete the processing of her MEB."

6.  Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 7 (Physical profiling), states the basic purpose of the physical profile serial system is to provide an index to the overall functional capacity of a Soldier, and is used to assist the unit commander and personnel officer in their determination of what duty assignments the Soldier 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 a Soldier 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 a Soldier has a medical condition or physical defect which requires certain restrictions in assignment within which the Soldier is physically capable of performing military duty.  The Soldier should receive assignments commensurate with his/her functional capacity.  Numerical designator 4 indicates that a Soldier has one or more medical conditions or physical defects of such severity that performance of military duty must be drastically limited.  The numerical designator 4 does not necessarily mean that the Soldier is unfit because of physical disability as defined in Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation).  Profiles are typed by temporary with an expiration date or permanent.

7.  Army Regulation 600-60 (Physical Performance Evaluation System) implements and establishes operating procedures for the Physical Performance Evaluation System (PPES).  The purpose of the PPES is to maintain the quality of the force by ensuring that Soldiers are physically qualified to perform their Primary Military Occupational Specialty (PMOS) or specialty code worldwide and under field conditions.  It provides:

	a.  The PPES is a program designed to evaluate Soldiers with a permanent numerical designator of 3 or 4 (hereafter referred to as a permanent 3 or 4 profile) in one of the profile serial factors based on their physical ability to perform their duties in a worldwide field or austere environment and recorded on DA Form 3349.  The PPES establishes the MMRB as an administrative screening board to make this evaluation.  This screening system ensures continuity of effort among commanders, doctors, personnel managers, and the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES).  It provides the MMRB convening authority with increased flexibility to determine a Soldier’s deployability, reclassification potential, or referral into the PDES (or processing for medical disqualification as applicable to certain Reserve Component cases).

	b. The MMRB is an administrative screening board.  It determines whether Soldiers who meet medical retention standards, but have a permanent physical impairment, can satisfactorily perform their PMOS (branch/specialty code for officers) in a worldwide field environment.  The result of this board action may result in retention in current MOS, a change in the Soldier's MOS, or referral into the PDES.  The MMRB recommendations are only based on an enlisted Soldier’s or warrant officer’s physical ability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her primary military occupational specialty (PMOS), or of an officer’s physical ability to perform in his or her branch or area of concentration or functional area.  Paragraph 2-2 states Soldiers must be referred to an MMRB in the following situations:


* in paragraph 2-2a(1), Soldiers must be referred to an MMRB if already permanently non-deployable for non-medical reasons when they are issued a permanent 3 or 4 physical profile
* in paragraph 2-2a(2), Soldiers who are issued a P3 or P4 physical profile on DA Form 3349, but meet medical retention standards
* in paragraph 2-2c, Soldiers who have been retained by the MMRB or found fit by the PDES, and subsequently receive a 2 or 4 physical profile

	c.  Paragraph 2-3 states Soldiers for whom administrative separation proceedings have been initiated will not be referred to the MMRB.

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 3-5, states any officer on active duty (for more than 90 calendar days) may tender a resignation under this paragraph except when action is pending that could result in resignation for the good of the Service; officer is under a suspension of favorable actions, pending investigation, under charges; or any other unfavorable or derogatory action is pending.  Such tender of resignation constitutes commencement of administrative separation proceedings.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requests reinstatement on active duty followed by PDES processing.  She cites her P3 physical profile for her lower extremities.

2.  The applicant served on active duty as an officer for almost 9 years.  During her service, she had recorded medical issues involving her feet.  However, the applicant continued to perform the duties of her branch and area of concentration.

3.  The applicant's records do not contain documents pertaining to her administrative separation proceeding; however, her DD Form 214 indicates she submitted a request for unqualified resignation.  This action precluded referral to an MMRB.

4.  The applicant also uses her DA Form 3349 as supporting evidence for an MMRB hearing.  However, this document was not issued until 16 December 2010, and approved on 17 December 2010, a week after her discharge.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.


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)                                         AR20110002359



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110002359



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1