IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  19 December 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130006941 


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 DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show in item 24 (Character of Service) honorable or general vice uncharacterized.

2.  The applicant states she is receiving disability compensation but she is unable to receive the appropriate benefits because her DD Form 214 shows her service was uncharacterized.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

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 Regular Army on 8 June 1995.  She completed basic combat training and on 14 August 1995 she was assigned to the 232nd Medical Battalion, Fort Sam Houston, TX for advanced individual training (AIT).

3.  Her record contains several Standard Forms 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care) and other medical documents that show she was treated at the Brooke Army Medical Center (BAMC), Fort Sam Houston, TX, as follows on:

	a.  17 August 1995, for pain in her upper left thigh for 1 month.  The examining physician diagnosed her with a hurt left thigh muscle and she was given a profile for no physical training (PT) for 1 week.

	b.  22 August 1995, for left hip pain for 5 weeks with no trauma.  The examining physician noted she took the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) 1 week prior.  He also annotated remarks pertaining to her gait, pain level, ability to walk, and her ability to squat but the writing is illegible and it is unclear what all was written.

	c.  22 August 1995, for an X-ray of her left hip to rule out a stress fracture.  The radiology report, dated 23 August 1995, stated the left hip series was unremarkable and recommended a bone scan.

	d.  25 August 1995, for a bone scan.  The radiology report, dated 30 August 1995, stated a mild area of increased uptake was seen in the bilateral femoral heads as well as diffuse uptake in the bilateral bases of the 1st metatarsals and within the bilateral knees and ankles.  She was diagnosed with stress changes of the knees, ankles, and feet.

	e.  31 August 1995, she was given a temporary 3 profile for the lower extremities for bilateral leg pain and stress reactions with no running, jumping, marching, or walking more than 1/2 mile for 2 weeks.

	f.  3 September 1995, for a complaint of left leg pain and bilateral foot pain.  The examining physician diagnosed her with stress fractures/remodeling and she was scheduled for an orthopedic appointment.

	g.  7 September 1995, she was given a temporary 3 profile for lower extremity stress fractures with no running, jumping, marching, or walking more than 1/4 mile for 3 weeks.  The profiling physician stated she needed to stay off her feet, rest, and use crutches.

	h.  8 September 1995, she was seen at the Orthopaedic Clinic, BAMC, Fort Sam Houston, TX, and she was given a temporary 3 profile for the upper and lower extremities for multiple joint and bone stress fractures with no running, jumping, or marching.  The profiling physician recommended she be given 1 month convalescent leave.  This profile did not have an expiration date.

4.  On 8 September 1995, the applicant's immediate commander submitted a request for her non-academic relief from her AIT course due to her injuries and convalescent leave recommendation by her physician.  On 21 September 1995, she (the commander) stated the applicant had been placed on convalescent leave for 1 month and recommended that she be placed on casual status until she was able to resume training.

5.  On 18 October 1995, she was seen at the Orthopaedic Clinic, BAMC, Fort Sam Houston, TX, and she was given a temporary 3 profile for the upper and lower extremities for multiple stress conditions with the use of crutches at all time.  This profile expired on 18 November 1995 and the profiling physician recommended that she be given 1 month convalescent leave.

6.  On 20 October 1995, she completed a DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement) wherein she stated:

	a.  She wanted to get out of the military under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 11 because she was not physically able to perform basic tasks.  She had been in the Army 4 and 1/2 months and had been hurt and on profile for 3 and 1/2 months.  She had multiple stress fractures and staying where she was did not seem to help her heal any faster and hindered her progress.

	b.  She had been hurting 24 hours a day and it had caused her to become depressed, have a lack of appetite, and insomnia.  She didn't think 30 days of convalescent leave would help because it might take her longer to heal.  Her children needed her and it had been especially hard for her 3 year old daughter.  Her spouse left the daughter with her grandmother and the grandmother had heart problems and two other grandchildren she cared for.  

	c.  She did not want to pursue a medical discharge as it would take too long and the longer she stayed at Fort Sam Houston, TX, the worse her condition would be as stress had a lot to do with a person's recovery.  Her daughter had emotional problems that needed to be dealt with and she couldn’t physically or mentally focus on her job.  She was on profile that limited her activities so she was of no use to the Army.  

7.  On 24 October 1995, she was seen at the Orthopaedic Clinic, BAMC, Fort Sam Houston, TX.  The examining physician stated the applicant would not need long term medical care and would heal eventually.  He recommended she be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11.  He also stated the applicant's separation should be expedited so she would be in a less physically demanding environment and her diagnosis of multiple stress fractures would resolve and heal in time.

8.  On 3 November 1995, her drill sergeant recommended that the applicant be removed from her AIT course and separated due to her medical condition as she was unfit to complete an APFT.  In an exit interview, dated 3 November 1995, the executive officer recommended approval of the withdrawal action and stated the applicant was unable to physically withstand the military lifestyle, had no potential due to her condition, and she had no desire or drive to remain in the service.  On 16 November 1995, the course director approved her non-academic deficiency withdrawal from the AIT course.

9.  The applicant was subsequently notified by her immediate commander that separation action was being initiated against her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 11-3a for entry level performance and conduct.  The commander stated she was unwilling or unable to adapt to the military environment and would not develop into a productive Soldier due to her poor physical condition, failure to respond to positive counseling, and lack of physical stamina.  She was advised of the procedures and rights available to her. 

10.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of the separation action that was being initiated against her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11 and declined to seek legal counsel.  She acknowledged she understood the procedures and rights that were available to her and further acknowledged she understood she would be receiving an uncharacterized discharge.  She elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.

11.  The separation authority subsequently approved the applicant's discharge action in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11 and stated she would not be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve, and as it was an entry level separation a discharge certificate would not be furnished.  Further rehabilitation and training would not be in the best interest of the Army and the separation would be accomplished within 3 working days.  On 29 November 1995, she was discharged accordingly.


12.  The DD Form 214 she was issued shows she was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 11-3a by reason of entry level performance and conduct with an uncharacterized character of service.  She completed 5 months and 22 days (172 days) of creditable active service.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 3 states a separation will be described as entry level with uncharacterized service if the Soldier has less than 180 days of continuous active duty service at the time separation action was initiated.  Paragraph 11-3a, of the version in effect at the time, provides for the separation of personnel due to unsatisfactory performance, conduct, or both, as evidenced by inability while in an entry level status. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant's separation action was initiated due to her inability to physically adapt to military service as evidenced by her repeated temporary profiles for stress fractures and her desire to be released from active duty.  As she was separated prior to completing 180 days of active service, she was still in an entry-level status at that time.  Therefore, she correctly received an uncharacterized character of service.  

2.  An entry-level status discharge is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier's military service.  It merely means the Soldier has not served on active duty long enough for his or her character of service to be rated.

3.  The ABCMR does not grant requests for the correction of records solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for benefits.  Every case is individually decided based upon its merits when an applicant requests a correction to his/her military records.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the 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)                                         AR20130006941



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130006941



6


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1