IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  11 December 2014	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140007125 


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 item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show something other than condition, not a disability.  

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  She challenges the narrative reason for her separation.  She was rated by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) at 40 percent (%) for her service-connected disability of her wrist and hips.  This is an indisputable indicator that her conditions were a disability and her DD Form 214 is incorrect.  Please refer to the battalion surgeon's statement which supports her contention.  

	b.  She was a good Soldier and did her job to the best of her ability.  She did her best at supporting the battalion and the mission and would have continued to do so if her disability hadn't made it impossible.  There was no malfeasance or improprieties which led to her disabilities; her disabilities are service-connected due to no fault of her own. 

3.  The applicant provides her DD Form 214, a memorandum, and two pages of a VA letter. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 January 2011 in the rank/grade of private first class (PFC)/E-3.  She was assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, MO, for basic combat training (BCT) and on 1 April 2011, she was assigned for advanced individual training (AIT) to the 84th Chemical Training Battalion, Fort Leonard Wood.

2.  Her record contains the following DA Forms 3349 (Physical Profile) that show she was issued profiles as follows on:

* 24 February 2011, temporary 2 rating for upper extremities that limited some physical training (PT) activities, for right hand pain status post fracture of the 5th finger of the right hand
* 14 March 2011, temporary 2 rating for eyes that did not limit any PT activities, for right hand pain post fracture of the 5th finger of the right hand
* 28 March 2011, temporary 2 rating for eyes that did not limit any PT activities, for a finger fracture (healed)
* 3 May 2011, temporary 3 rating for upper extremities that limited some PT activities, for hand pain status post fracture
* 5 May 2011, temporary 3 rating for upper extremities that limited some PT activities, for hand pain status post fracture
* 27 June 2011, temporary 2 rating for eyes that did not limit any PT activities, for healed fracture, right hand
* 1 September 2011, temporary 3 rating for lower extremities and 2 rating for eyes that limited some PT activities, for right hip pain
* 21 September 2011, temporary 3 rating for lower extremities and 2 rating for eyes that limited some PT activities, for right hip pain
* 3 October 2011, temporary 2 rating for lower extremities, for right hip pain
* 12 October 2011, temporary 3 rating for lower extremities and 2 rating for eyes, for right hip pain, bursitis and impingement
* 2 November 2011, temporary 3 rating for lower extremities and 2 rating for eyes that limited some PT activities, for right hip pain, bursitis and impingement
* 3 January 2012, temporary 3 rating for lower extremities and 2 rating for eyes that limited some PT activities, for right hip pain
* 15 February 2012, temporary 2 rating for lower extremities that limited some PT activities, for chronic hip pain

3.  She successfully completed AIT and was awarded military occupational special (MOS) 74D (Chemical Operations Specialist).  In or about March 2012, she was assigned to the 92nd Chemical Company, 83rd Chemical Battalion, Fort Stewart, GA.  


4.  Her record contains the following DA Forms 3349 that show she was issued temporary profiles as follows on:

* 3 April 2012, temporary 3 profile for upper extremities that limited some PT activities, for right shoulder pain
* 12 April 2012, temporary 3 profile for upper extremities and temporary 3 for lower extremities that limited some PT activities, for right nerve compression syndrome (of the right wrist)
* 30 May 2012, temporary 3 profile for upper extremities that limited some PT activities for right shoulder pain
* 10 July 2012, temporary 3 profile for upper extremities that limited some PT activities, for right arm/hand pain
* 18 October 2012, temporary 3 profile for lower extremities that limited some PT activities, for hip pain; this profile expired on 16 January 2013 and stated she was expected to be fully mission-capable by 16 January 2013

5.  The applicant provides and her record contains a memorandum to her commander, dated 20 September 2012, from the battalion surgeon wherein the battalion surgeon stated:

	a. The applicant had ongoing hip and wrist pain.  She had multiple x-rays and magnetic resonance imagings (MRI) that show no cause for her pain (emphasis added).  She had completed physical therapy with no improvement.  She was evaluated by orthopedic surgery for her wrist and determined not to be a surgical candidate.  She did not yet have the 12 months allotted by Army Regulation
40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) to recover and thus had not met her medical retention determination point.  

	b.  She failed multiple modalities of medical treatment including oral medications, physical therapy, pain management hip injections, and multiple light duty profiles.  At this time, the applicant desired to pursue separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 5-17, other physical conditions.  Her physical condition interfered with her performance of duty; specifically she was in too much pain and distress due to her hip and wrist when wearing the required military gear and was unable to support the battalion mission.

6.  On 19 November 2012, she was notified by her immediate commander that separation action was being initiated against her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17 for other designated physical or mental conditions (not a disability).  He stated, in part, her pain prohibited her from wearing the required military gear.  He stated he was recommending she receive an honorable discharge.  On 19 November 2012, she acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation action.

7.  On 20 November 2012, she underwent a mental status evaluation.   The examining psychiatrist found, in part, the applicant was fit for duty; her behavior was cooperative, her perception normal, and she was able to understand and participate in administrative proceedings.  She was diagnosed with adjustment order with depressed mood.

8.  On 20 November 2012, she was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the separation action being initiated against her and the procedures and rights available to her.  She acknowledged that she understood if she were issued a general discharge she may be ineligible for many or all benefits under both State and Federal laws, and that she may expect to encounter prejudice in civilian life.  She declined to submit a statement in her own behalf.

9.  On 26 November 2012, her senior commander recommended approval of the separation action with the issuance of an honorable discharge.

10.  On 30 November 2012, the separation authority approved her discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-16 and directed her service be characterized as general, under honorable conditions.  

11.  Her Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 4 January 2013, shows her PULHES as 112111.  On 14 January 2013, she was discharged in the rank of PFC with an honorable discharge.

12.  The DD Form 214 she was issued shows she was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17, with an honorable characterization of service.  She completed 1 year, 11 months, and 27 days of creditable active service.  Her DD Form 214 also shows the following entries:

* item 25 (Separation Authority) - Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17 
* item 26 (Separation Code) - JFV
* item 28 - Condition, Not a Disability  

13.  On 28 March 2014, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request to change the narrative reason for her discharge and determined her discharge both proper and equitable.  

14.  Her available records are void of any evidence that shows she was ever diagnosed with any injury/medical condition while serving on active duty that permanently prevented her from performing her duties and would require referral to a medical evaluation board (MEB) or physical evaluation boar (PEB).

15.  There is no evidence in her available records that shows she ever received a permanent physical profile rating of 3 that would require referral to an MEB/PEB.

16.  The applicant provides two pages of a VA letter, dated 6 June 2012, wherein it shows effective 15 January 2013 she was granted service-connected disability as follows:

* 10% - for right hip strain (claimed as right hip joint pain)
* 10% - for left ankle strain
* 10% - for right ankle strain
* 10% - for reactive airway disease (claimed as shortness of breath)
* 10% - for right wrist carpal tunnel syndrome
* 0% - for flexion deformity right hand ring finger (also claimed as right hand injury and pain)
* 0% - status post right hand little finger fracture (claimed as right hand injury and pain)

17.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) governs the evaluation of physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability.  It states MEB/PEBs are convened to document a Soldier's medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by the Soldier's status.  A decision is made as to the Soldier's medical qualification for retention based on the criteria in Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3.

18.  Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 3-36, of the version in effect at the time, stated an adjustment disorder does not render an individual unfit because of physical disability, but may be the basis for administrative separation if recurrent and causes interference with military duty.

19.  The Army physical profile serial system is based primarily upon the function of body systems and their relation to military duties.  The functions of the various organs, systems, and integral parts of the body are considered.  An individual having a numeric designation of "1" under all factors is considered to possess a high level of medical fitness.  A physical profile designator of "2" under any or all factors indicates an individual possesses some medical condition or physical defect that may require some activity limitations.  A profile containing one or more numerical designations of "3" signifies the individual has one or more medical condition that may require significant limitations.  A permanent profile of "3" would require referral to an MEB.
20.  Army Regulation 635-40 further states the mere presence of impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature/degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the member reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, rank, grade, or rating.  The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform his or her duties and assign an appropriate disability rating before that service member can be medically separated or retired.

21.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-17 provides that a Soldier may be separated on the basis of other physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability that 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.

22.  Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permit the VA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  The VA, which has neither the authority, nor the responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service, awards disability ratings to veterans for conditions that it determines were incurred during military service and subsequently affect the individual's civilian employability.  The VA awards disability ratings to veterans for service-connected conditions, including those conditions detected after discharge, to compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability.  Unlike the Army, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings.

23.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) states that SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations which identify reasons for and types of separation from active duty.  The SPD code of JFV is the correct code for Soldiers separating under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17 and "condition, not a disability" is the corresponding entry for the narrative reason for separation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although the available evidence shows the applicant was treated for various ailments while serving on active duty and she was issued numerous temporary physical profiles that limited her physical activities, the available evidence confirms she was only assigned ratings of 2 or 3 for her medical issues that temporarily required some physical activity limitations.  None of her complaints were found to have a physical basis and she was subsequently diagnosed with adjustment disorder with depressed mood.  At the time of her discharge, she had a PULHES of 112111 with 2 for the lower extremities. 

2.  Her commander found that after she failed multiple modalities of medical treatments, to include numerous profiles, her physical condition interfered with her satisfactory performance of duty and appropriately recommended she be discharged for other physical or mental conditions that did not amount to a disability.   

3.  On 14 January 2013, she was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17, for a condition, not a disability.  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.  This is the only valid narrative reason for separation permitted under that paragraph.  Her narrative reason for separation is correctly shown on her DD Form 214.  

4.  A disability decision rendered by another agency does not establish an error on the part of the Army.  Operating under different laws and its own policies, the VA does not have the authority or the responsibility for determining a Soldier's fitness to perform military duties.  The VA may award ratings because of a service-connected disability that was incurred in or aggravated by active military service that affects the individual's civilian employability.

5.  In view of the foregoing, she is not entitled to 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)                                         AR20140007125





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140007125



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1