IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  14 May 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120016587 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests the entry in item 24 (Character of Service) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed from "UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)" to "HONORABLE."

2.  He states after serving his country for 3 years, he was unable to pass the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) after sustaining two injuries to his ankle.  He asks the Board to consider the portions he has highlighted in section c (Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale) of the Case Report and Directive that documents the decision of the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) in his case.

3.  He provides a page from ADRB Case Number AR20120004246.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 25 August 2005, the applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve Delayed Enlistment Program (DEP).  On that date, he underwent a medical examination that found no conditions of a degree that would prevent military service.  

2.  On 13 September 2005, he was discharged from the DEP and enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 September 2005 for a period of 4 years.  His record shows he completed Basic Combat Training.  His record does not show that he completed advanced individual training (AIT) that resulted in award of a military occupational specialty.

3.  On 22 May 2008, he was counseled for failing to pass the APFT on three occasions:  8 and 25 April 2008 and 20 May 2008.  The counseling indicates he was in a holdover status in AIT because he did not pass the APFT prior to graduation.  He indicated he agreed with the counseling. 

4.  On 4 June 2008, he was counseled for failing to pass the APFT on 30 May 2008.  He was informed that, because he had failed the APFT at least four times, his command could decide to administratively separate him from the Army.  He indicated he agreed with the counseling.  

5.  On 25 June 2008, he was flagged for suspension of favorable personnel actions due to APFT failure.

6.  His record shows that, on 9 July 2008, he underwent a medical examination.  A clinical evaluation noted one abnormality:  pes planus (flat feet).  He was found to be qualified for service.  

7.  On 10 July 2008, he underwent a behavioral health evaluation.  The evaluation noted no mental health diagnoses and no need for further examination.  He was found to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings, to be mentally responsible, and to meet retention standards.  He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command.

8.  On 15 August 2008, his commander notified him he was initiating action to separate him for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 13.  His commander stated the reason for the proposed action was the applicant's failure to successfully complete the end-of-course APFT.  His commander informed him he was recommending a general discharge.  

9.  In an undated memorandum, the applicant acknowledged he had been advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him and its effect, of the rights available to him, and the effects of any action taken by him in waiving his rights.  He elected not to submit statements in his own behalf.  

10.  On 26 September 2008, the separation authority approved his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-2e and directed he receive a general discharge.  On 30 September 2008, he was discharged as directed.  Item 24 of his DD Form 214 shows the entry "UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)."

11.  His complete service medical records are not available for review.  
12.  On 29 June 2012, the ADRB reviewed his request for an upgrade of his discharge to honorable.  In his application, he indicated that, while on active duty, he suffered from a form of psychosis later diagnosed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) as schizoaffective bi-polar disorder.  Because of this medical condition, he was unable to complete his training, which resulted in his early separation with a general discharge.  

13.  Section c of the ADRB Case Report and Directive shows the analyst who prepared the case recommended upgrade of his discharge to honorable on the basis that the characterization of service was inequitable.  It appears the analyst's recommendation was based on the fact that the sole reason for his discharge was his failure to meet APFT standards and that he had served 3 years of a 4-year enlistment without any incidents of misconduct.  The analyst noted the diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder and a VA service-connected disability rating granted on 28 March 2011, and also noted the applicant had undergone a mental evaluation on 10 July 2008 that showed he was mentally responsible, with clear thought content, and able to recognize right from wrong.  

14.  The ADRB determined that, notwithstanding the analyst's recommendation and rationale, the applicant's length of service and quality of service were not sufficient to overcome the characterization of service granted.  The ADRB unanimously voted not to change the characterization of his service.  

15.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  

	a.  Chapter 13 states that initiation of separation proceedings is required for Soldiers without medical limitations who have two consecutive failures of the Army Physical Fitness Test, unless the responsible commander chooses to impose a bar to reenlistment per Army Regulation 601-280 (Total Army Retention Program).  The regulation requires that separation action be taken when in the commander’s judgment the individual will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further military training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.  Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation is characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for correction of item 24 of his DD Form 214 to show he received an honorable discharge.

2.  The available records contain no evidence showing he had a physical or mental condition during his period of service that prevented him from successfully completing the APFT.  The available records do, however, show that he was physically and mentally fit for retention at the time of his discharge processing.  

3.  The applicant has noted the ADRB analyst's favorable recommendation to change the characterization of his service to honorable and the reasons the analyst gave for that recommendation.  The ADRB did not concur with the analyst's recommendation and voted unanimously not to change the characterization of the applicant's service.  

4.  The decision to recommend and award him a general discharge was within his chain of command's authority.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.

5.  It is reasonable to expect a Soldier with 3 years of service and no documented medical conditions to be able to pass the APFT.  Failure to do so in the absence of any mitigating circumstances is not acceptable conduct.  In this case, there is no evidence of mitigating circumstances that were not considered by his chain of command.  Therefore, there is no basis for changing the separation authority's decision to award the applicant a general discharge.   

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____x___  ____x___  ___x_____  DENY APPLICATION




BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.



      _______ _   _x______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.



ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120016587





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120016587



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1