Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2011 | AR20110025019
Original file (AR20110025019.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/12/19	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states: "While at Ft. Leonard Wood for basic training, I incurred an injury to my right foot, one that ultimately cut my time in service short. I was examined at the Consolidated Troop Medical Center at Leonard Wood after an injury during running for a PT Test. I had been seen numerous times before any diagnostic tests (x-rays) were completed. It took the doctor several weeks before he even thought about having me not bear weight on it, by putting me on crutches so it could heal. Once x-rays were completed the doctor then referred me to Podiatry where I was seen by 2 physicians. It took 7 weeks total to even diagnose me and only 2 days to have my future decided for me through a ruling by the doctor gaving me no chance to show that my injury did not happen prior to service as she “assumed” it did. (see enclosed copies of physicians reports and EPTS.)

2.  According to my Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) physical on 20060630, I was pronounced fit for duty, with all physical evaluations completed. Enclosing copy in signature packet.

3.  According to the Veterans Hospital on 20100330 and MRI on 20100410 they both confirm the lisfranc Injury incurred on 20060904 did not heal properly, as they both indicate the presence of post-traumatic arthritis that will continue to be chronic. Copies of Medical Records are enclosed.

4.  On 20061026 I was presented with a EPSBD Proceeding that I know was incorrect. The doctor was convinced that there was nothing that could be done to ensure the completion of my training. Had I known that I could disagree with the decision that was handed to me I could have challenged it. With the medical training I have completed, prior to the ARMY I can assure the Board as well as the doctor that the insertion of K-Wire and a few pins plus a month or so of rehabilitation would have prevented the further exacerbation of the Injury and allowed me to complete my training as well as my time in the service."

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: 061026
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 061114   Chapter: 5-11       AR: 635-200
Reason: Failed Medical/Physical/Procurement Standards	   RE:     SPD: JFW   Unit/Location: 43d AG, Fort Leonard Wood, MO 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None










Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  24
Current ENL Date: 060824    Current ENL Term: 04 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	00 Yrs, 02  Mos, 21  Days ?????
Total Service:  		00 Yrs, 02  Mos, 21  Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: None   GT: NIF   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: None

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record indicates that an Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSB) convened on 18 October 2006, and determined the applicant’s medical condition of right navicular cuneiform arthritis, which existed prior to service and was not aggravated by service.  The applicant reviewed and concurred with the findings of the Entrance Physical Standard Board (EPSB) proceedings, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in her own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Service.  
       
       On 7 November 2006, the separation authority directed the applicant’s discharge with service as uncharacterized.

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-11 specifically provides that Soldiers who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards, when accepted for enlistment, or who became medically disqualified under these standards prior to entry on active duty or active duty training or initial entry training will be separated.  A medical proceeding, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate medical authority within six months of the Soldier’s initial entrance on active duty, that the condition would have permanently or temporarily disqualified the Soldier for entry into the military service had it been detected at that time, and the medical condition does not disqualify the Soldier from retention in the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501, Chapter 3.  The characterization of service for Soldiers separated under this provision of the regulation will normally be honorable.  However for Soldiers in entry-level status, it will be uncharacterized.  Army Regulation 635-200 states that a Soldier is in an entry-level status if the Soldier has not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty prior to the initiation of separation action.
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       

       c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
       After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records during the period of enlistment under review, the issue, and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  
       
       The proceedings of the Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) revealed that the applicant had a medical condition which was disqualifying for enlistment and that it existed prior to entry on active duty.  Subsequently, these findings were approved by competent medical authority.  The applicant agreed with these findings and the proposed action for administrative separation from the Army.  The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected through the separation process.  
       
       A Soldier is in entry-level status (ELS) for the first 180 days of continuous active duty.  The purpose of the entry-level status is to provide the Soldier a probationary period.  Army Regulation 635-200 also provides, except in cases of serious misconduct, that a Soldier’s service will be uncharacterized when her separation is initiated while the Soldier is in entry level status.  
       
       Further, a fully honorable discharge may be granted only in cases which are clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving outstanding personal conduct and/or performance of duty.  The analyst determined that no such unusual circumstances were present in the applicant’s record and her service did not warrant an honorable discharge.  
       
       The narrative reason for separation is governed by specific directives.  The applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 5, paragraph 5-11, AR 635-200.  The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Failed Medical/Physical/Procuremetns Standards," the separation code is "JFW", and the reentry code is "RE 3".  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, separation code, entered in block 26, and RE Code, entered in block 27 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.
       
       In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board deny relief.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 1 June 2012         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: Online application, Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) Proceedings, Report of Medical History, Report of Medical Examination, Radiology Report, dated 12 April 2010, and DD Form 214 for the period of service under review.

VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.



        
IX.  Board Decision						
Board Vote:
Character - Change 0    No change 5
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)

X.  Board Action Directed
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to: 
Change Reason to: NA
Other: NA
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA

XI.  Certification Signature
Approval Authority:




EDGAR J. YANGER
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board




BONITA E. TROTMAN
Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army
Secretary Recorder





















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 AR20110025019
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 2 of 4 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090001852

    Original file (AR20090001852.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2009/01/05 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 29 August 2008, after careful consideration of medical records, laboratory findings, and medical examinations, the Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSB) found that the applicant was medically unfit for enlistment in accordance with current medical fitness standards, he was diagnosed with a left knee meniscal tear, chronic, and in...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100017072

    Original file (AR20100017072.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 3 November 2009, after careful consideration of medical records, laboratory findings, and medical examinations, the Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) found that the applicant was medically unfit for enlistment in accordance with current medical fitness standards, in that he was diagnosed as having a bipolar disorder, and in the opinion of the evaluating physicians the condition existed prior to service. Army Regulation...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130010973

    Original file (AR20130010973.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 25 March 2011, the separation authority directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service listed as uncharacterized. The characterization of service for Soldiers separated under this provision of the regulation will normally be honorable. However, after a careful review of the entire applicant’s military records, and the issues and document submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070003642aC071031

    Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 5 November 1997, after careful consideration of medical records, laboratory findings, and medical examinations, the Physical Evaluation Board (EPSB) found that the applicant was medically unfit for enlistment in accordance with current medical fitness standards and in the opinion of the evaluating physicians the conditions(s) existed prior to service. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120006524

    Original file (AR20120006524.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army Regulation 635-200 states that a Soldier is in an entry-level status if the Soldier has not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty prior to the initiation of separation action.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070003642

    Original file (AR20070003642.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army Regulation 635-200, provides that a Soldier is in an entry-level status if the Soldier has not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty prior to the initiation of separation action. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130003392

    Original file (AR20130003392.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his uncharacterized discharge to general, under honorable conditions or to fully honorable. The characterization of service for Soldiers separated under this provision of the regulation will normally be honorable. However, after a careful review of all the applicant’s available records for the period of enlistment under review, the issues and documents submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2011 | AR20110001611

    Original file (AR20110001611.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? On 9 September 2009, the separation authority directed that the applicant’s be discharged from the Army with an uncharacterized separation of service. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, and the issue submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100014751

    Original file (AR20100014751.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? The characterization of service for Soldiers separated under this provision of the regulation will normally be honorable. 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120002245

    Original file (AR20120002245.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? On 17 November 2011, the separation authority signature appears on the DA Form 4707 which the applicant submitted; however, block 29 which shows whether the action by the separation authority directed the applicant’s discharge or retention on active duty appears to be blank. A medical proceeding, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate medical authority within six months of the Soldier’s initial entrance...