| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa M. Chandler | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr. | Member | |
| Ms. Marla J. N. Troup | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That her separation code be changed so that she may be eligible to reenter the military. In essence, she is also requesting that her Reentry Eligibility (RE) Code also be changed.
APPLICANT STATES: That it has been 10 years since she was separated, she has matured and is more dependable and confident. She wants a second chance to serve.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
That on 18 October 1990, she enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for 5 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 75B (Personnel Administrative Specialist). She completed the required training and was awarded MOS 75B. On 14 March 1991, she was assigned to Fort Clayton, Panama, with duties in MOS 75B.
On 22 January 1991, the applicant was issued a temporary profile due to a tear of the third metatarsal cuneiforms ligament in her left foot. The profile stated, "no jumping, marching or running." The profile expired on 5 February 1991. On 6 February 1991, she was issued a temporary profile for the same medical condition that stated "may substitute walk for run portion of PT test." This profile expired on 6 March 1991 and there is no evidence that she was issued a profile after this date.
Between October and November 1991, DA Forms 4856 (General Counseling Form) show that the applicant was counseled on numerous occasions for various reasons, to include: having an open beer bottle in a military vehicle; shouting and using profanity; failing to use the appropriate military bearing; showing a lack of responsibility; failing to perform her duties to Army standards; being disrespectful towards a noncommissioned officer; and failing to report to remedial Army physical fitness training.
On 23 October 1991, the applicant informed her chain of command that she was frustrated and that she desired to be separated from the military. The applicant was informed that she could not be separated unless she "messed up," or was unable to function/perform her duties on a daily basis.
A DA Form 4856, dated 30 October 1991, states that the applicant, on 28 and 29 October 1991, "openly and proudly contested that [she was] intentionally going to fail the Army Physical Fitness test (APFT) conducted on 30 October 1991." It states that she did, in fact, fail the APFT and that the failure was presumed to be intentional given her statements of 28-29 October 1991 and the fact that she had demonstrated no prior difficulty in passing the test.
On 20 November 1991, the applicant's commander submitted a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) recommending the applicant be separated under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, due to the failure of two consecutive APFT's on 30 October and 15 November 1991. The applicant signed the recommendation and requested release on 16 December 1991.
On 3 December 1991, the separation authority approved the separation recommendation and directed the issuance of a HD.
The applicant's records do not contain all the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge process; however, her record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) that was prepared at the time of separation and authenticated by the applicant. Her DD Form 214 shows that, on 24 December 1991, she was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance with an HD. She had completed 1 year, 2 months and 7 days of active military service. She was assigned a separation code of "LHJ" and an RE code of RE-3. The DD Form 214 shows no lost time.
Pertinent Army regulations (AR) provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. AR 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the RA and the US Army Reserve. Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment. That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE codes. RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable. Certain persons who have received nonjudicial punishment are so disqualified, as are persons with bars to reenlistment, and those discharged under the provisions of chapters 9, 10, 13, and 14 of AR 635-200. A separation code of "LHJ" applies to RA soldiers separated for unsatisfactory performance under chapter 13, AR 635-200.
AR 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier. Repeated failure of the APFT is a basis for a discharge for unsatisfactory performance.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
2. An available DD Form 214 shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 13, AR 635-200, due to unsatisfactory performance and assigned a Separation Code of "LHJ" and an RE-code of RE-3. These codes apply to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable as determined by enlistment officials and the needs of the Army.
3. In view of the circumstances in this case, both the assigned RE code and the separation code were, and still are, appropriate as shown on the applicant's DD Form 214. The applicant has submitted no evidence that these codes are in error or should be changed.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's 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
__fne___ __hof___ __mjnt__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002078319 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030617 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19911224 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, Chap 13 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A49.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.4900 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110008626
A DA Form 4856, dated 22 September 2009, shows: * her first sergeant (1SG) counseled her and informed her she was considered an APFT failure * a suspension of favorable personnel actions was completed and her records were flagged until she passed the APFT * she was informed all APFT failures would be given a record APFT within 90 days until successfully completed * she was placed in a remedial physical fitness program to help her pass the APFT * she was informed continued APFT failure...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001286
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). A counseling statement, dated 2 December 1991, for failing to pay her rent and utilities for the months of October and November 1991. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140001286 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140001286 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012997
His records contains a request for elimination packet, dated 17 February 1993, which shows his commander consulted with the Staff Judge Advocate/Legal Services Center, requested an elimination packet, and recommended the applicant be separated in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13 (Separation for Unsatisfactory Performance). The evidence of record shows the applicant underwent two surgeries and was given periods of convalescent...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012837
Records show the applicant underwent a separation medical physical on 5 April 2005. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. However, her military medical records...
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 | CY2008 | 20080004855
In her self-authored statement, dated 3 July 2008, the applicant states the following: a. that she should not have been separated under chapter 16-5 of Army Regulation 635-200 based on her service records. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), governs the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to their military duties because of physical disability. With respect to medical disability retirement, there is no evidence in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068930C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation. On 16 June 1995, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance for failing to pass two record APFTs.
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080009276
Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 1 June 2000, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance for failing two consecutive Army Physical Fitness Tests (APFT) with a honorable discharge. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: No...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140004928
On 23 December 1991, the unit commander notified him of the proposed recommendation to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. However, his narrative reason for discharge was based on his failure to pass the APFT four times, he failed to meet height and weight standards, and other minor infractions/misconduct as recorded on his counseling statements. Although the applicant's unit...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000769
The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows she entered active duty on 1 May 1991 and was discharged on 9 October 1991 UP AR 635-200, chapter 11, based on entry level status. The applicant contends that her uncharacterized discharge should be changed to honorable because she served to the best of her ability, there were no disciplinary problems with her during the period of service, and she was not evaluated for her medical conditions before she...