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