IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    20 March 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110017235 


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 receipt of a line-of-duty (LOD) determination for an injury that occurred during initial entry training on 25 June 2003.

2.  The applicant states she was on initial active duty for training (IADT) from 2 June 2003 to 14 August 2003 as an enlisted member of the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR).  On 25 June 2003, she rolled her right ankle.  She reported to sick call at the Consolidated Troop Medical Center, Fort Leonard Wood, MO, on 28 June 2003.  The medical examiner determined she had sprained her ankle.  On 24 August 2003, she received a follow-up examination at the 369th Combat Support Hospital (CSH) due to pain and swelling in the ankle for the past 2 months.

3.  The applicant states she was diagnosed with degenerative joint disease of the right ankle on 15 February 2010.  Her primary care provider felt the condition was due to spraining her ankle while in IADT.  She submitted a claim to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), but her claim was denied.  The VA denied her benefits because she did not have an LOD investigation or determination.

4.  The applicant provides:

* Orders 16-8, dated 28 January 2003
* DA Form 5181-R (Screening Note of Acute Medical Care), dated 28 June 2003

* DA Form 689 (Individual Sick Slip), dated 24 August 2003
* DD Form 220 (Active Duty Report), dated 11 August 2003
* document from the Radiological Associates Services Imaging Center, dated13 February 2010
* VA Statement of the Case, dated 20 March 2010
* Veteran Compensation Medical Certification, dated 22 June 2010
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 18 January 2008

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the USAR on 27 January 2003 for a period of 8 years in the grade/rank of private first class/E-3.  She was assigned to the 369th CSH in Puerto Rico.

3.  She provides Orders 16-8 issued by the San Juan Military Entrance Processing Station, Fort Buchanan, PR, dated 28 January 2003, which ordered her to IADT at Fort Leonard Wood, MO.  Her orders directed her to report on 6 June 2003.

4.  She provides a DA Form 5181-R, dated 28 June 2003, which states she fell and rolled her right ankle 3 days prior to her medical examination.  She was diagnosed with a sprained right ankle, given Motrin for pain and returned to duty without a profile.

5.  She provides a DA Form 689, dated 24 August 2003, which shows she was seen at her Reserve unit for right ankle pain and swelling.  She was given Motrin and light duty for two weeks.


6.  She provides a DD Form 220, dated 11 August 2003 which shows she served on active duty from 2 June 2003 to 14 August 2003.

7.  On 19 January 2009, she applied to the VA requesting a service connection for her right ankle condition.  The VA denied her request on 23 December 2009.

8.  On 30 December 2009, she disagreed with the VA's  denial and requested a de novo review.

9.  She provides a document from the Radiological Associates Services Imaging Center, dated13 February 2010, which shows she received a magnetic resonance image (MRI) of her right ankle.  The results of the MRI show she had a degenerative joint disorder of the tibiotalar joint with narrowing at the joint space and thinning of the articular cartilage and minimal fluid within the joint space.

10.  She provides a VA Statement of the Case, dated 20 March 2010, which shows a de novo review was conducted includes the VA's denial of a service-connected disability for her right ankle.

11.  She provides a Veteran Compensation Medical Certification, dated 22 June 2010, wherein the doctor stated that after a review of her medical and service records, it was his medical opinion that her medical condition was due to an injury, disease, or event which occurred during her military service.  He listed her diagnosis as degenerative joint disorder of the tibiotalar joint with narrowing at the joint space with thinning of the articular cartilage.

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-4 (Line of Duty Policy, Procedures, and Investigations) prescribes policies and procedures for investigating the circumstances of disease, injury, or death of a Soldier and provides standards and considerations used in determining LOD status.  Paragraph 1-4 states that the Secretary of the Army or authorized designee reserves all powers, functions, and duties relating to LOD determinations. The authority conferred by this provision will not restrict the designee from using self-discretion in referring any case to the Secretary of the Army for consideration and final decision.  The regulation also states:

	a.  LOD investigations are conducted essentially to arrive at a determination of whether misconduct or negligence was involved in the disease, injury, or death and, if so, to what degree.  Depending on the circumstances of the case, an LOD investigation may or may not be required to make this determination.  The LOD 

determination is presumed to be "LOD YES" without an investigation in the case of injury, except when the injury occurs under strange or doubtful circumstances or is apparently due to misconduct or willful negligence.  In all other cases of injury, except injuries so slight as to be clearly of no lasting significance, an LD investigation must be conducted.

	b.  investigations can be conducted informally by the chain of command where no misconduct or negligence is indicated, or formally where an investigating officer is appointed to conduct an investigation into suspected misconduct or negligence.  A formal LOD investigation must be conducted in the cases of injury, disease, death, or medical condition that occurs under strange or doubtful circumstances or is apparently due to misconduct or willful negligence or when a USAR or Army National Guard Soldier serving on an active duty tour of 30 days or less is disabled due to disease and/or when requested or directed for other cases.

	c.  documentation for an informal LOD investigation typically consists of a DA Form 2173 (Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status) completed by the medical treatment facility and the unit commander and approved by the appointing authority or higher authority.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant argues that she should receive an LOD determination for the injury she incurred on 25 June 2003.

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was a Reserve Soldier in the 5th week of IADT when she sprained her ankle.  She was given Motrin for pain and returned to duty without a profile.  She went on to successfully complete IADT and left active service on 14 August 2003, 4 weeks after the incident.  On 
24 August 2003, she reported to her Reserve unit complaining of ankle swelling and pain.  She was given Motrin and light duty for two weeks.

3.  The evidence of record shows she requested VA service connection for her right ankle condition on 19 January 2009 and the VA denied her claim on 
23 December 2009.  On 30 December 2009, she disagreed with the VA findings and requested a de novo review.  On 13 February 2010, she had an MRI of her right ankle which showed a narrowing of the tibiotalar joint suggestive of osteoarthritis.  A de novo review was conducted on 20 March 2010 and service connection was again apparently denied.


4.  The evidence evaluated by the VA was not provided for review by the ABCMR.  She only submitted the VA adjudicative regulations.  The VA makes its own determinations with respect to LODs.  The VA looks at service records and decides if the condition being evaluated was incurred or aggravated while on active service.  

5.  The applicant is asking, in effect, that the ABCMR determine that her right ankle which has MRI findings "suggestive" of osteoarthritis is in the LOD because she sprained her ankle 6 years earlier.  If the VA corrects her records thusly, the VA will grant service connection.  The VA, however, has examined more medical records than have been made available to the ABCMR and have not been able to make a connection between possible osteoarthritis of the joint and the sprained ankle.

5.  The evidence does not show a connection between the MRI finding in 2010 and the sprain in 2003.  An ankle sprain is an injury to soft tissue, specifically ligaments and tendons.  The MRI specifically states "the ligaments and tendons of the ankle show normal continuity and signal intensity."  There is no evidence of any residuals of the ankle sprain.  The slight narrowing of the joint space that may represent osteoarthritis is a joint finding.  There is no evidence she suffers from any residuals of her ankle sprain in 2003 and any current malady has not been shown to be in the LOD.

6.  At any rate, Army regulation does not require a LOD in cases of injuries that are considered so slight that they are clearly of no lasting significance, as is the case with a sprained ankle.

7.  In view of the foregoing evidence, her injury incurred on 25 June 2003 does not require an LOD.  Therefore, there is no reason to grant her requested relief.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___X____  ___X____  ___X____  DENY APPLICATION




BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief.  Therefore, the Board determined 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)                                         AR20110017235



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110017235



6


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1