IN THE CASE OF: Ms.
BOARD DATE: 7 May 2014
CASE NUMBER: AR20140005031
___________________________________________________________________________
Board Determination and Directed Action
After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, and considering the examiners Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.
Presiding Officer
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case.
THE APPLICANTS REQUEST AND STATEMENT:
1. The applicant requests an upgrade of her uncharacterized discharge to honorable.
2. The applicant states, in effect, she would like to receive veterans benefits. The applicant did not submit any issues of propriety or equity in her application for the board to consider.
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:
a. Application Receipt Date: 11 March 2014
b. Discharge Received: Uncharacterized
c. Date of Discharge: 28 February 2014
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Condition, Not a Disability, AR 635-200,
paragraph 5-17, JFV, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment: 795th Military Police Battalion, Fort Leonard
Wood, MO
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 1 October 2013/5 years
g. Current Enlistment Service: 5 months
h. Total Service: 5 months
i. Time Lost: None
j. Previous Discharges: None
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty: None
m. GT Score: 94
n. Education: HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service: None
p. Combat Service: None
q. Decorations/Awards: None
r. Administrative Separation Board: NA
s. Performance Ratings: NA
t. Counseling Statements: NIF
u. Prior Board Review: No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 October 2013, for a period of 5 years. She was 22 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. She was in basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, when her discharge proceedings were initiated. She completed 5 months of active duty service.
SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:
1. On 7 February 2014, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 5, paragraph 5-17, AR 635-200, by reason of other designated physical or mental condition for being diagnosed by competent medical authority with pain and inflammation on her left groin and right posterior hip at the SI joint due to a stress injury since attempting individual entry training (IET). This condition prevents her from running, jumping, marching, crawling, climbing stairs, and at times even standing without increase pain.
2. The unit commander recommended an entry level discharge with service uncharacterized and advised the applicant of her rights.
3. On 7 February 2014, the applicant waived her right to consult with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement on her behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval of an uncharacterized discharge.
4. On 20 February 2014, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicants discharge with an uncharacterized separation of service.
5. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 28 February 2014, with a characterization of service listed as uncharacterized.
6. The applicants service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.
EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:
1. Discharge Orders Number 058-1330, dated 27 February 2014, DA US Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, effective 28 February 2014.
2. A counseling statement, dated 13 January 2014, reflects the applicant was counseled on the recommendation to separate her under the provisions of Chapter 5-17.
3. A memorandum, dated 13 January 2014, from Mr. P, MSPT, Consolidated Troop Medical Clinic (CTMC) Physical Therapy, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, reflects the applicant developed pain and inflammation in the L groin and R posterior hip at the SI joint due to stress injury since attempting IET at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. The condition prevents her from running, jumping, marching, crawling, climbing stairs, and at times even standing without increase in pain. The applicant would not be able to withstand the rigors of training with the condition.
4. A memorandum, dated 17 January 2014, from Mr. J, CTMC Physical Therapy, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, reflects the applicant developed pain and inflammation in her left IPR pelvis during IET. The condition prevented her from performing regular physical readiness training (PRT) and participating in scheduled training events without increased pain and potentially causing further harm. The applicant would not be able to withstand the rigors of training with the current condition.
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:
The applicant provided a DD 293, dated 11 March 2014, and a DD Form 214.
POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY:
The applicant did not provide any in support of her application.
REGULATORY AUTHORITY:
1. Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-17 specifically provides that a Soldier may be separated for other physical or mental conditions not amounting to a disability, which interferes with assignment to or performance of duty and requires that the diagnosis be so severe that the Soldiers ability to function in the military environment is significantly impaired.
2. AR 635-200, paragraph 5-1, states that a Soldier being separated under this paragraph will be awarded a characterization of service of honorable, under honorable conditions, or an uncharacterized description of service if in entry-level status.
3. A general, under honorable conditions discharge is normally inappropriate for individuals separated under the provisions of Chapter 5-17 unless properly notified of the specific factors in the service that warrant such characterization.
ANALYSTS DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
1. The applicants request for an upgrade of the characterization of her discharge was carefully considered. However, after a careful review of all the available records for the period of enlistment under review, and the issues she submitted, there were insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.
2. The evidence of record shows the applicant, while in training status, was diagnosed by competent medical authority with pain and inflammation on her left groin and right posterior hip at the SI joint due to a stress injury since attempting individual entry training (IET). This condition prevents her from running, jumping, marching, crawling, climbing stairs, and at times even standing without increase pain. The condition prevented her from performing regular physical readiness training (PRT) and participating in scheduled training events without increased pain and potentially causing further harm. The applicant would not be able to withstand the rigors of training with the current condition.
3. The applicants service was uncharacterized because he was in entry-level status. 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 Soldiers service will be uncharacterized when the separation is initiated while the Soldier is in entry level status.
4. A general, under honorable conditions discharge is not authorized under ELS conditions and an 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 applicants service record contains no such unusual circumstances were present and his service did not warrant an honorable discharge. The record does not contain any evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and it appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the applicants rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.
5. The applicant contends that an upgrade of her discharge would allow veterans benefits. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.
6. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the board deny relief.
SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:
Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 7 May 2014 Location: Washington, DC
Did the Applicant Testify? NA
Counsel: None
Witnesses/Observers: NA
Board Vote:
Character Change: 0 No Change: 5
Reason Change: 0 No Change: 5
(Board member names available upon request)
Board Action Directed:
Issue a new DD Form 214: No
Change Characterization to: No Change
Change Reason to: No Change
Change Authority for Separation: NA
Change RE Code to: NA
Grade Restoration to: NA
Other: NA
Legend:
AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record FG - Field Grade IADT Initial Active Duty Training RE - Reentry
AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NA - Not applicable SCM- Summary Court Martial
BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial
CG - Company Grade Article 15 HD - Honorable Discharge OAD - Ordered to Active Duty UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge
CID - Criminal investigation Department MP Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont) AR20140005031
Page 6 of 6 pages
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)
CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002356
c. In November 2009, a separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 5-17 (Other designated physical or mental conditions) was discussed with the Soldier and he stated that he wanted a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). On 17 February 2010, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17, by reason of...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130000292
Presiding Officer I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 9 June 2009 for a period of 8 years, and reported to her active duty training on 28 December 2009. It further states that a separation will be described as entry-level with service uncharacterized if, at the time separation action is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020656
On 20 June 2011, the separation authority approved the recommended separation action and directed the applicant receive an entry-level separation. A review of the applicant's military service records, as well as the documents submitted with her application, failed to show evidence that the applicant was diagnosed with a permanent unfitting condition. Records show the applicant was ordered to ADT on 28 March 2011 and she was discharged on 7 July 2011.
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130007216
The applicant requests an upgrade of her uncharacterized discharge to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for the discharge. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01929
IAW DoDI 6040.44, the Board must use the VASRD coding and rating standards which were in effect at the time of the CI’s separation. Physical Disability Board of Review I direct that all the Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected accordingly no later than 120 days from the date of this memorandum.
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130001617
Another profile violation was being taken to the shooting ranges multiple times where he stood guard in towers that caused more pain to his back. Additional documents: applicants self-authored statement addressed to the Army disability review board, undated; VA statement in support of claim, dated 14 April 2013; health record, dated 15 November 2011; medical records and doctors statement, dated 25 January 2013, 11 February 2013, 6 November 2011, and 4 March 2013, respectively. However,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009286
The applicant requests, in effect, that her uncharacterized discharge be changed to show that she was honorably discharged by reason of permanent disability. The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 20 June 2011 and directed that she be issued an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service. Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence to show the applicant was not properly diagnosed when she was evaluated and discharged in 2011, there appears to be...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00678
Antalgic gait; Neurostimulator in place§4.71a Rating10%20%20%20%The MEB exam on 18 October 2006, four months prior to separation, indicated the CI had an antalgic gait, positive SLR, and subjective numbness to the left groin. Although the VA exam did not document antalgic gait, it met the ROM criteria for a 20% evaluation and the Board could not reasonably consider different portions of different exams for a less favorable rating. In the matter of the GERD condition, or any other medical...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02405
The groin condition, characterized as “left inferior pubic ramus stress fracture,” was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501.One other condition was submitted by the MEB. RATING COMPARISON : Service IPEB – Dated 20041103VA* - (13 Mos.Post-Separation)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Chronic Left Groin Pain Secondary to Inferior Pubic Ramus Stress Fracture5099-50030%Inferior Pubic Ramus5294NSC20051221Chronic Left Groin5299-5294NSC20051221Other x 0 (Not in...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01952
Otherwise, a permanent profile change to limit these activities may be considered.” The commander stated in his letter to the Physical Evaluation Board the applicant was assigned to less strenuous duties which did not require prolonged periods of standing, walking or squatting. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, states the applicant was diagnosed with bilateral patellofemoral pain syndrome (chronic...