Applicant Name: ?????
Application Receipt Date: 2009/07/21 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA
I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change
Issues: The applicant states: "I would gratefully ask that line 24 of DD Form 214 be changed to honorable discharge and line 28 be changed to medical or service connected disability. I was discharged for failure to meet physical standards. I constantly had problems completing runs. I was not overweight or a problem soldier. After my discharge my V.A. representative sent me to get a evaluation for a service connected disability. It was determined that i was awarded a 30 percent disability. I believe that a large part of my service connected disability relates directly with my ability to run. As of today i still suffer from arthritis in my knee and ankles. I am confident that my service while enlisted could not be called anything but honorable."
II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed?
Tender Offer: NA
See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits
III. Discharge Under Review
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 010921
Discharge Received: Date: 011212 Chapter: 13-2e AR: 635-200
Reason: Physical Standards RE: SPD: LFT Unit/Location: B Co, 1/327th Inf Regt, 101st Abn Div (AASLT), Fort Campbell, KY
Time Lost: None
Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None
Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None
Counseling Records Available: Yes No
IV. Soldiers Overall Record
Age at current enlistment: 19
Current ENL Date: 980619 Current ENL Term: 04 Years ?????
Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 03Mos, 25Days ?????
Total Service: 03 Yrs, 03Mos, 25Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No
MOS: 11B10/Infantryman GT: NIF EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR
V. Post-Discharge Activity
City, State: Heath, OH
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed
VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation
a. Facts and Circumstances:
The evidence of record shows that on 21 September 2001, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance for numerous Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) failures and because it was determined the applicant would not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier, with a honorable discharge.
He was advised of his rights. On 21 September 2001, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. On 24 September 2001, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.
b. Legal Basis for Separation:
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13-2e of this regulation, states in pertinent part, that separation proceedings will be initiated for Soldiers without medical limitations who have two consecutive failures of the Army Physical Fitness Test. The reason for discharge will be shown as physical standards. Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance for failure of the Army Physical Fitness Test will be characterized as honorable or general, under honorable conditions.
c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:
After a careful review of all the applicants military records for the period of enlistment under review, the documents, and the issues he submitted, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge to fully honorable.
The analyst noted that the applicant was discharged for the sole reason of a failure to meet the minimum standards of the Army Physical Fitness Test and that the unit commander recommended an honorable characterization of service. The analyst also noted the lack of any other derogatory information in the record.
In view of the foregoing, the analyst recommends that the applicants characterization of service be upgraded to fully honorable.
The applicant contends that a large part of his service connected disability relates directly with his ability to run. The analyst acknowledges the independent document (Department of Veterans Affairs Rating Decision) submitted with the application awarding the applicant a overall or combined rating of 30% for his chronic right ankle sprain, degenerative changes to right knee, cervical strain, and lumbar strain. However, the applicant's available record does not contain any evidence of inservice diagnosis of chronic right ankle sprain, degenerative changes to right knee, cervical strain, and lumbar strain as indicated in the independent documentation from the Department of Veteran Affairs. The applicant did not submit any corroborating evidence of inservice diagnosis of chronic right ankle sprain, degenerative changes to right knee, cervical strain, and lumbar strain or related medical issues.
Furthermore, the narrative reason for separation is governed by specific directives. The applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 13, Paragraph 13-2e, AR 635-200. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Physical Standards," and the separation code is "LFT." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be entered exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation.
Therefore, the analyst found that the reason for discharge was fully supported by the record and therefore, remains both proper and equitable.
VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing
Type of Hearing: Date: 2 June 2010 Location: Washington, DC
Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No
Counsel: NA
Witnesses/Observers: NA
Exhibits Submitted: Department of Veterans Affairs Rating Decision dated 11 June 2002.
VIII. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analysts recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as result it is inequitable. The Board found that the length of the applicant's service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge, mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable. However, the Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it.
IX. Board Decision
XI. Certification Signature
Board Vote: Approval Authority:
Character - Change 5 No change 0
Reason - Change 0 No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)
EDGAR J. YANGER
Colonel, U.S. Army
X. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board
Issue a new DD Form 214
Change Characterization to:
Change Reason to: NA
Other: NA
RE Code:
Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA
Legend:
AWOL Absent Without Leave GCM General Court Martial NA Not applicable SCM Summary Court Martial
BCD Bad Conduct Discharge GD General Discharge NIF Not in the file SPCM Special Court Martial
CG Company Grade Article 15 HD Honorable Discharge OAD Ordered to Active Duty UNC Uncharacterized Discharge
DD Dishonorable Discharge HS High School Graduate OMPF Official Military Personnel File UOTH Under Other Than Honorable
FG Field Grade Article 15 IADT Initial Active Duty Training RE Reentry Code Conditions
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE
Case Number AR20090012968
______________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 3 pages
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010979
MEB Proceedings he provided in support of his previous application show, on 29 December 1992, an MEB diagnosed him to have chronic tendonitis of the left supraspinatus tendon, left patellar tendon, and left Achilles tendon, and recommended that he be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). f. A VA Rating Decision, dated 28 September 2004, showing he was granted service-connection for: (1) left shoulder tendonitis rated at 20% from 1 May 2000. The available records show no evidence...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-01174
I would like to be rated for other medical conditions as well. As an example, one examiner documented that the CI “moaned and groaned throughout the exam;” and, frankly stated in the CI’s report that he “seems to be able to handle his pain with ibuprofen, which is disproportionate to the amount of pain he expressed today.” It is also noted that 13 months post separation, after the final lumbar spine disability rating, the VA records documented improvement of lumbar ROMs to approximately 50%...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00997
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination, as follows: Physical Disability Board of Review
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00709
Right Ankle Condition . All evidence considered proximate to the CI’s date of separation, there is not reasonable doubt in the CI’s favor supporting the addition of the lower back condition as an unfitting condition for separation rating. The CI’s contended depression was not in evidence at the time of separation and the worsening of his ankle and lower back conditions cannot be adjudicated by the Board.
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00026
The anxiety condition was rated by the VA at 30% within three months of separation. Other Conditions. I have reviewed the subject case pursuant to reference (a) and, for the reasons set forth in reference (b), approve the recommendation of the PDBR Mr. XXXX’s records not be corrected to reflect a change in either his characterization of separation or the disability rating previously assigned by the Department of the Navy’s Physical Evaluation Board.
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00170
There is no evidence this condition was unfitting at the time of separation from service. There is no evidence these conditions were unfitting at the time of separation from service. The Board also considered the following conditions and unanimously determined that none were unfitting at the time of separation from service and therefore no disability rating is applied: Residuals, Postoperative Cervical Discectomy and Fusion at C5-C6 and C6-C7, Cervical Disc Disease with Radiculopathy;...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00208
The IPEB adjudicated her chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain conditions as unfitting, rated 10% and 0% respectively, citing application of the Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1332.39 and AR 635-40 (chronic LBP); and the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain policy (chronic neck pain). The CI was then medically separated with a combined 10% disability rating. Chronic Neck Pain condition : See exam chart summary above.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008734
The evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for correction of his record to show he received a medical retirement, nor does it support his request for correction of item 9 of his final DD Form 214 to show he retired with more than 20 years of service. The applicant states the PEB failed to consider the physical profiles he received during his service; however, having had a temporary or permanent physical profile is not evidence of an unfitting condition. The record...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-01261
The PEB adjudicated the patellofemoral syndrome bilateral as unfitting, rated 10%, with application the Veterans’ Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The PEB on 9 October 2002, three months prior to separation, found patellofemoral syndrome, bilateral, unfitting, coded 5299-5003 (arthritis, degenerative) with a rating of 10%. The VA rationale noted that the ratings were non-compensable because the C&P examination documented full ROM without pain, no instability and...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 00508
Chronic Neck Pain Condition: The PEB determined this condition was unfitting but was also EPTS and not aggravated by service. Both prior service and service disability ratings are determined IAW the VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt) standard and the final disability percent rating is determined by deducting the prior service rating from the service rating. The C&P examination used to determine the 30% disability rating was based on an exam completed more than a year prior to separation and the...