Table 2.
Duty Status
| RTFD + Profiling (PP/TP), n (%) | MEB, n (%) | P Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 121 (78) | 35 (22) | |
| Branch | <.02 | ||
| Army (n = 109) | 91 (83) | 18 (17) | |
| Navy (n = 18) | 13 (73) | 5 (28) | |
| Marines∗ (n = 29) | 17 (59) | 12 (41) | <.01 |
| Age† | |||
| 19-29 yr (n = 91) | 66 (73) | 25 (27)‡ | <.01 |
| 30-39 yr (n = 45) | 36 (80) | 9 (20) | |
| ≥40 yr (n = 20) | 19 (95) | 1 (5)§ | <.01 |
| Rank‖ | |||
| JE (n = 47) | 34 (72) | 13 (28)¶ | <.004 |
| SE (n = 66) | 50 (76) | 16 (24)¶ | <.004 |
| JO (n = 18) | 13 (72) | 5 (28) | |
| SO (n = 16) | 16 (100) | 0 (0) | <.02 |
NOTE. P values are listed for statistically significant findings.
JE, junior enlisted; JO, junior officer; MEB, medical discharge; PP, permanent profile; RTFD, return to full duty; SE, senior enlisted; SO, senior officer; TP, temporary profile.
Marines were more likely than their Army counterparts to be medically discharged (P < .01).
All age groups and ranks were more likely to obtain an RTFD than other outcomes. P values indicate the most likely alternative outcome to an RTFD.
MEB was the most likely alternative to an RTFD in the group aged 19 to 29 years.
PP or TP was the most likely alternative to an RTFD in the group aged 40 years or older.
Ranks were available for 147 patients.
SE and JE patients were more likely to receive an MEB than SO patients as an alternative to an RTFD.