BOARD DATE:	  13 January 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140009467 


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, in effect, that his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected by removing the term "Existed Prior to Service (EPTS)" in block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation).

2.  The applicant states, in effect:

* he injured his knee while in training and received surgery
* he participated in physical therapy and tried to rehabilitate his knee
* despite his efforts, he was referred to the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) and went through a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and Physical Evaluation Board (PEB)
* he was medically discharged, but the reason shown on his DD Form 214 is wrong
* the PEB gave him a 0 percent disability rating and found that his medical condition was an EPTS condition
* as proof this finding was incorrect, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) subsequently found his disability to be service-connected and gave him a disability rating of 10 percent
* he was told the 0 percent rating would be corrected, but this never happened
* the EPTS statement listed in block 28 of his DD Form 214 needs to be changed

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Virginia Army National Guard (VAARNG) on 18 June 2010.  He entered one station unit training (OSUT) on 21 July 2010 to obtain military occupational specialty 31B (Military Policeman).  He developed right knee pain during his 13th week of training.

2.  Evaluation by an orthopedic physician revealed the knee pain was caused by a small piece of bone below the knee (tibial tubercle ossicle), which was diagnosed as being a likely outcome of Osgood-Schlatter disease.  [Based upon a review of multiple medical websites, including one by the Mayo Clinic, Osgood-Schlatter disease is characterized by an inflammation of the ligament surrounding the kneecap, and presents as pain localized below the kneecap.  It is most often seen in young adolescents and can result from adolescent growth spurts and overuse due to participation in sports.]  During medical evaluation, the applicant reported having had Osgood-Schlatter disease between ages 14 and 16, for which he had received treatment.  The applicant said he had wrestled [in school] despite the knee pain he experienced.

3.  The applicant received knee surgery and the small bone was removed.  He participated in physical therapy, but he was referred to the PDES when he was given a permanent 3 profile for his knee.  On 19 May 2011, an MEB found the applicant's chronic right knee pain did not meet medical retention standards.  Additionally, the MEB determined this medical condition was incurred while entitled to base pay, and did not exist prior to entering the service.  The applicant's case was sent to a PEB for a fitness determination and disability rating.

4.  On 5 August 2011, an Informal PEB found the applicant's medical condition to be unfitting, and was secondary to Osgood-Schlatter disease, thereby making it an EPTS condition.  EPTS conditions are not compensable under the Army PDES.  The proper disposition is separation from the Army without entitlement to disability benefits.  

5.  As an additional finding, the PEB determined his condition was not permanently aggravated while on active duty, and the disability had increased only to the extent of its accepted normal and natural progression.

6.  On 8 August 2011, the applicant concurred with the PEB results, waived his right to a formal hearing, and affirmed his desire not to continue on active duty.

7.  On 16 August 2011, the applicant was honorably discharged.  His DD Form 214 shows he completed a total of 1 year and 27 days of creditable active military service.  Item 26 (Separation Code) shows the entry "JFM" and item 28 shows the entry "Disability, Existed Prior to Service, PEB."

8.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army PDES and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.  

9.  Chapter 4 of Army Regulation 635-40 provides for the separation of enlisted Soldiers found to be unfit by a PEB due to a condition which existed prior to service or occurred in the line of duty and not due to the Soldier's misconduct.  Paragraph 4-24b(4) provides for separation for physical disability without severance pay.

10.  Army Regulation 635-40 states, in pertinent part, that according to accepted medical principles, certain abnormalities and residual conditions exist that, when discovered, lead to the conclusion that they must have existed or have started before the individual entered the military service.  Examples are congenital malformations and hereditary conditions or similar conditions in which medical authorities are in such consistent and universal agreement as to their cause and time of origin that no additional confirmation is needed to support the conclusion that they existed prior to military service.  

11.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes), in Table 2-2 (Separation program designator codes applicable to enlisted personnel) provides narrative reasons by SPD codes as well as the associated regulatory authority.  When the SPD code "JFM" is used, the associated narrative reason is "Disability, Existed Prior to Service, PEB" and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 4-24b(4).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  While in OSUT, the applicant suffered right knee pain which was the result of Osgood-Schlatter disease, a medical condition he had experienced during his youth and prior to entering military service.  Following surgery and physical therapy, he underwent an MEB, which referred him to a PEB.  The PEB reviewed the medical evidence of record and concluded there was sufficient evidence to support a finding the right knee condition met the criteria for EPTS.  The PEB additionally determined his condition was not permanently aggravated by service, and was the result of a natural progression.  Accordingly, and in accordance with the requirements of Army Regulation 635-40, the PEB recommended separation by reason of physical disability without entitlement to severance pay.  The applicant concurred with this result and waived his right to a formal hearing.

2.  The applicant contends the VA found his medical condition to have a service-connection and awarded him a disability rating of 10 percent.  The VA's program for disability benefits, however, is separate and distinct from the Army's disability system.  The VA makes its own decisions concerning the entitlement to disability compensation and ratings based on the statutes and regulations which govern its operations.  The basis for the Army's disability system is not whether there is a service-connection, but rather whether its onset occurred in the line of duty during the Soldier's term of service; and whether that condition causes him or her to be unfit for further service.  Therefore, the fact that the VA, by their criteria, may have found a service-connection and rated the applicant's right knee condition differently from the Army does not affect the results of the PEB.

3.  The applicant's narrative reason for separation, as shown in block 28 of the DD Form 214, was assigned because he was separated under the provisions of paragraph 4-24b(4) for a medical condition onset prior his entry into military service.  The basis for his MEB/PEB was his EPTS condition, and the only valid narrative reason for separation permitted under that paragraph, as required by Army Regulation 635-5-1, is "disability, EPTS."  The applicant, therefore, received the proper narrative reason for his separation.

4.  In view of the foregoing evidence, there is insufficient basis upon which to grant 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)                                         AR20140009467



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140009467



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1