| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That her reentry (RE) code be changed from RE code 3 to RE code 1.
APPLICANT STATES: That she really wants to serve her country. She states that she could not meet minimum standards of the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) because she could not run due to breathing problems. She states that she did not discover the reason for her lack of energy until she was being evaluated during her chapter 13 separation physical. She now believes that her being slightly anemic contributed to her lack of energy and her inability to meet APFT standards and would like to be given another chance to serve in the Army.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
She enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 August 2001 for a period of 4 years.
On 7 February 2002, the applicant failed a record AFPT. She was tested again on 7 March 2002 and again failed the AFPT. The unit commander initiated separation proceedings under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200 for unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge. The appropriate authority approved the discharge with an honorable discharge. Accordingly, on 26 July 2002 the applicant was discharged after completing 11 months and 20 days of creditable military service. Her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty) reflects "unsatisfactory performance" as the narrative reason for discharge, with a separation code of JHJ, and an RE code of RE-3.
On 26 July 2002, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for a change in her RE code. The request was not within the purview of the ADRB and it was forwarded to this Board for review.
Army Regulation 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.
Pertinent Army regulations 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. Army Regulation 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (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. RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.
Army Regulation 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes, contains narrative reasons for discharge, the appropriate SPD codes for those narrative reasons, and a cross-reference to the applicable RE code. Soldiers separated for the purpose of unsatisfactory performance are issued an RE code of RE-3.
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. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize her rights.
2. The Board carefully reviewed the applicant's records and determined that her RE code of RE-3 is the appropriate code for her narrative reason for discharge.
3. 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.
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
__jns___ __mhm___ __jtm___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002080310 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030325 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (GD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 20020726 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, chapter 13 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A49.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | r |
| ISSUES 1. | 100.0300 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003084C070205
She maintains that the DD Form 2173, (Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status) verified her injury; however, no one in the command took the time to correct the narrative summary listed on her DD Form 214. As a result, she was separated from the Army for failure to pass the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT). The service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by their military records.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001494
The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge from a general, under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. On 29 November 1994, his company commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance due to repeated failure of the AFPT. His records are void of evidence showing he appealed to the Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007237
Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. There is no medical evidence of record that shows the applicant had any medical condition prior to her release from active duty on 16 May 1994. There is also no evidence of record to show she was ever medically unfit to perform her duties.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078319C070215
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 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005226
The applicants military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA), in pay grade E-1, on 28 June 1990, for 4 years. The company commander further remarked that based on the applicant's 9 December 1991 failure he was initiating discharge proceedings under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Separations), chapter 13 by reason of unsatisfactory performance. Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130002469
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. On 29 November 2012, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 6 December 2012, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011872
On 27 October 1987, her immediate commander initiated separation action against her in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of unsatisfactory performance with an honorable discharge. On 16 November 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of unsatisfactory performance with her service characterized as honorable. The available evidence shows the applicant was unable to pass the APFT during training.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074791C070403
He was denied enrollment and was returned to his unit to appear before a promotion removal board; however, he was again required to take an APFT and passed it again. For reasons not explained in the available records, the applicant was removed from the promotion standing list and was subsequently transferred to Honduras, where he had to appear before a promotion board in order to re-acquire promotion list standing. Inasmuch as the Board has been unable to establish that the message he has...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 04106884C070208
The applicant provides a copy of a 16 November 1997 medical record, two physical profile reports, a DA Form 7349-R (Initial Medical Review – Annual Medical Certificate), a Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER), an OKARNG Form 17-1 (Separation/Discharge/Inactive National Guard Request), a 2 April 2003 memorandum from an Oklahoma Army National Guard personnel officer, a 15 September 1997 cardiovascular clinic encounter form, a 27 October 1997 radiological report, a 30 June 2003...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 040005656C070208
In May 2004, after the applicant’s last temporary physical profile expired, the applicant’s unit commander initiated action to administratively separate her from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, because the applicant had failed the APFT on six different occasions. The applicant’s commander recommended that the applicant received a general discharge. However, the separation authority approved the commander’s recommendation and on 2 June 2004...