APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge for unsatisfactory performance be corrected to a medical retirement.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was using an asthma inhaler when he failed the run portion of his Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military personnel and medical records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 January 1986, was awarded the military occupational specialty of Bradley Fighting Vehicle System Mechanic Recovery Operations, served continuously, and was promoted to pay grade E-5.
On 17 May 1994 the applicants commander notified him that he was recommending his separation for unsatisfactory performance and of his rights in conjunction with that recommendation. The basis for his recommendation was his twice failing the APFT and his failure to comply with the Army Weight Control Program (AWCP) standards. The applicant waived all of his rights except his right to legal counsel.
The applicants commander then forwarded his recommendation to discharge the applicant to the approving authority. Documentation attached to that recommendation showed that the applicant had failed a record APFT, was given remedial training and passed a diagnostic APFT, but again failed a record APFT, failing the maximum allowable time for the run by 57 seconds. The documentation also showed that the applicant was given a body fat content test on 16 April 1994 and was determined to exceed his allowable weight by 35 pounds, thereby exceeding the body fat standards by 1.55 percent (the applicant is 72 inches tall and weighed 235 pounds).
On 18 April 1994 the applicant was given a physical examination. In that examination it was noted that he was not taking any medications and did not have any physical profile limitations. On the portion of the physical that is completed by the individual being examined, the applicant himself marked that he did not have asthma or shortness of breath. That examination determined that the applicant was medically qualified for separation with no physical profile limitations at all.
Accordingly, on 6 June 1994 the applicant was issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate for unsatisfactory performance. He had 8 years, 4 months and 10 days of active service and had been awarded the Army Commendation Medal and three awards of the Army Achievement Medal.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the policy and prescribes the procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 applies to separation for unsatisfactory performance. This chapter provides for the separation of individuals who, in the commanders judgment, will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier. When separation for unsatisfactory performance was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. There is absolutely no evidence that the applicant had a medical condition which would have warranted his processing through medical channels.
2. Lacking medical evidence which would warrant giving the applicant an alternate event for the run on his APFT, he was required to complete the run in a specified period of time. He failed to do so twice, despite remedial training.
3. Therefore, his separation due to unsatisfactory performance was appropriate.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicants request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013808
Counsel further states that as a result of the applicant's failure to pass the APFT, the Superintendent of the USMA recommended that he be separated from the academy, be discharged from the United States Army, and repay the costs of his education. He has given everything he had to the USMA. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. graduating him from the December 2004 class and awarding him the Bachelor of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012413
The applicant requests correction of his military records to show he was discharged due to medical reasons. A DA Form 4856, dated 3 April 2013, shows the applicant was counseled concerning his APFT failure. On 5 August 2013, the commander notified the applicant of his intention to initiate action to separate him from the military under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separation), chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010367C070208
This document did not indicate the applicant’s medical condition prevented her from meeting the weight loss goals required by the weight control program. The record does include a DD Form 214 that confirms the applicant was separated under the provisions of chapter 18, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of weight control failure, on 15 January 2003. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was enrolled in the weight control program and after failing to make satisfactory progress...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059470C070421
The applicant provided DA Form 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard), dated 22 April 1999, which shows that she passed the APFT and her height was recorded as 69 inches and her weight was recorded as 214 pounds. However, evidence of record shows that the applicant failed to take the APFT for two consecutive years due to a medical profile (May 1996 to April 1997; and May 1997 to April 1998). After review of all evidence in this case, the Board determined that the applicant has not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001059C070205
On 27 February 2005, the applicant was administered a "for record APFT" in which he passed the push-ups and sit-ups and failed the 2-mile run and was not within body fat standards. The applicant was administered a for record APFT in which he passed the push-ups and sit-ups but was not within body fat standards and he failed the 2-mile run. The advisory opinion restates that the applicant's contention that he was not allowed due process in appealing his bar to reenlistment carries...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053139C070420
The Inspector General inquiry determined: “No evidence existed that [applicant’s name omitted] actually filed an Article 138 complaint against his Company Commander. The applicant was advised by military counsel to appeal the bar to reenlistment and to file an Article 138 complaint and he did not do either. Evidence of record shows that he chose to not appeal the QMP decision and request retention on active duty on the basis of improved performance based on the argument that he met Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063197C070421
Army Regulation 140-111 establishes the policies and provisions for imposing bars to reenlistment for members of the AGR program under the QMP. Since all three of those reports, however, show that she met the height and weight standards of the regulation, the absence of the required remark is considered an oversight and does not reflect the true nature of her physical fitness. Her NCOERs for the periods in question show that she had a profile and consequently could not take the APFT.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000370C070206
He further states his discharge from the Army for unsatisfactory performance was not deserved, and now requests he be given a medical discharge for his flat feet and the torn ligament in his knee, or that his records be corrected to show he completed his enlistment and was separated by reason of ETS. The APFT scorecard shows he completed 42 pushups, 65 sit-ups, and the 6.2 miles alternate bicycle event in 37 minutes and 30 seconds, which again resulted in a failure of his APFT. Therefore,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100279C070208
In the Line of Duty memorandum to the Physical Disability Board, the CO went on to explain that the applicant was flagged due to failure to meet height and weight standards in accordance with Army Regulation 600-9 and that since his arrival at that unit, he had gained 33 pounds and his body fat increased from 22.43 percent to 28.58 percent. During the counseling session, the applicant was informed that if his conduct continued, action may be initiated to separate him from the Army under the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003880
Her record contains a DA Form 4856, dated 23 September 1998, that shows she was enrolled in the Army weight control program because she exceeded the maximum allowable weight for her height by 60 pounds and her body fat content by 6.46 percent. c. on 16 April 1999 (3rd endorsement), a Physicians Assistant, USAMEDDAC informed her immediate commander that in accordance with Army Regulation 600-9 (Army Weight Control Program) the applicant had been examined and found to be fit for participation...