Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | AR20120000641
Original file (AR20120000641.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/12/30	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he was awarded 10% service connected disability, and he needs an upgrade to be able to help with employment and his GI Bill and other VA benefits.

II.  Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed?	     
Tender Offer:   NA

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Discharge Under Review
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: 	   Date: 021126
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 021211   Chapter: 5-11      AR: 635-200
Reason: Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards	   RE:     SPD: JFW   Unit/Location: C Co, 2/81st AR, Fort Knox. KY 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  23
Current ENL Date: 020912    Current ENL Term: 03 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	00 Yrs, 03  Mos, 00  Days ?????
Total Service:  		00 Yrs, 03  Mos, 00  Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: None   GT: 89   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: None

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed













VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record indicates that an Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSB) convened on                13 November 2002, and determined the applicant’s medical condition of degenerative joint disease which made the applicant unfit to train and that a waiver would not be recommened.  The applicant would have needed a profile for no running, jumping, or marching as these greatly exacerbated his pain.  The applicant reviewed and concurred with the findings of the Entrance Physical Standard Board (EPSB) proceedings, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Service.  
       
       On 5 December 2002, the separation authority directed the applicant’s discharge with service as uncharacterized.

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-11 specifically provides that Soldiers who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards, when accepted for enlistment, or who became medically disqualified under these standards prior to entry on active duty or active duty training or initial entry training will be separated.  A medical proceeding, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate medical authority within six months of the Soldier’s initial entrance on active duty, that the condition would have permanently or temporarily disqualified the Soldier for entry into the military service had it been detected at that time, and the medical condition does not disqualify the Soldier from retention in the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501, Chapter 3.  The characterization of service for Soldiers separated under this provision of the regulation will normally be honorable.  However for Soldiers in entry-level status, it will be uncharacterized.  Army Regulation 635-200 states that a Soldier is in an entry-level status if the Soldier has not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty prior to the initiation of separation action. 

       c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
       After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records during the period of enlistment under review, the issues and document submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.   
       
       The evidence of record shows that the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge as entry-level status, with the description of service as uncharacterized.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides in pertinent part, that a Soldier is in entry-level status for the first 180 days of continuous active duty. 
       
       The purpose of the entry-level status is to provide the Soldier a probationary period.  Soldiers who are found to lack the necessary motivation, adaptability, self-discipline, ability, or attitude to become productive Soldiers may be expeditiously separated while in entry-level status.  Army Regulation 635-200 also provides, except in cases of serious misconduct, that a Soldier’s service will be uncharacterized when the separation is initiated while the Soldier is in entry level status.  
       
       Further, a general, under honorable conditions discharge is not authorized under ELS conditions and a fully honorable discharge may be granted only in cases which are clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving outstanding personal conduct and/or performance of duty.  The analyst determined that no such unusual circumstances were present in the applicant’s record and his service did not warrant an honorable discharge.  The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and that the rights of the applicant were fully protected through the separation process.  
       
       
       
       
       
       The analyst noted the applicant's issues about the needs of an upgrade of his discharge to help with employment and his GI Bill and other VA benefits.  However, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.
       
       Additionally, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.
       
       In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 30 May 2012         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293, Department of Veteran Affairs decision letter, dated 17 September 2007, Medical 200 Board, dated 8 November 2002, Discharge Orders, dated 6 December 2002, Record of Emergency Data, Servicemembers Group Life Insurance Election and Certificate, Enlisted Record Brief, Statement of Mailing Address, Service Member's Statement, and DD Form 214 for the period of service under review.

VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.
























        
IX.  Board Decision						
Board Vote:
Character - Change 0    No change 5
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)

X.  Board Action Directed
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to: 
Change Reason to: NA
Other: NA
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA

XI.  Certification Signature
Approval Authority:




EDGAR J. YANGER
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board




BONITA E. TROTMAN
Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army
Secretary Recorder



















Legend:
AWOL    	Absent Without Leave		GCM   General Court Martial	NA   Not applicable			SCM	Summary Court Martial
BCD   	Bad Conduct Discharge	GD      General Discharge	NIF   Not in the file			SPCM	Special Court Martial
CG 	Company Grade Article 15	HD      Honorable Discharge	OAD   Ordered to Active Duty		UNC	Uncharacterized Discharge  
DD 	Dishonorable Discharge	HS       High School Graduate	OMPF   Official Military Personnel File	UOTH  	Under Other Than Honorable 
FG	Field Grade Article 15		IADT   Initial Active Duty Training	RE     Reentry Code				Conditions 
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20120000641
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 4 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090001852

    Original file (AR20090001852.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2009/01/05 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 29 August 2008, after careful consideration of medical records, laboratory findings, and medical examinations, the Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSB) found that the applicant was medically unfit for enlistment in accordance with current medical fitness standards, he was diagnosed with a left knee meniscal tear, chronic, and in...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090009108

    Original file (AR20090009108.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? On 4 February 2009, the intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with an uncharacterized discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 states that a Soldier is in an entry-level status if the Soldier has not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty prior to the initiation of separation action.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080016073

    Original file (AR20080016073.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2008/10/14 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 4 August 2008, after careful consideration of medical records, laboratory findings, and medical examinations, the Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSB) found that the applicant was medically unfit for enlistment in accordance with current medical fitness standards, he was diagnosed with chronic colitis in the opinion of the...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080009843

    Original file (AR20080009843.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 9 May 2008, after careful consideration of medical records, laboratory findings, and medical examinations, the Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSB) found that the applicant was medically unfit for enlistment in accordance with current medical fitness standards, she was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder not other wise specified (NOS), and in the opinion of the evaluating physicians the condition existed...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080005090

    Original file (AR20080005090.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application Receipt Date: 080402 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 14 January 1994, after careful consideration of medical records, laboratory findings, and medical examinations, the Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSB) found that the applicant was medically unfit for enlistment in accordance with current medical fitness standards, he was diagnosed with seizure disorders, and in the opinion of the evaluating physicians...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120009870

    Original file (AR20120009870.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Paragraph 5-11 specifically provides that Soldiers who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards, when accepted for enlistment, or who became medically disqualified under these standards prior to entry on active duty or active duty training or initial entry training will be separated. The applicant may apply to the Veterans Administration for a review and determination of his case.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080020022

    Original file (AR20080020022.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 27 August 1996, after careful consideration of medical records, laboratory findings, and medical examinations, the Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSB) found that the applicant was medically unfit for enlistment in accordance with current medical fitness standards. On 17 September 1996, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with an uncharacterized separation of service. A fully honorable...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090007523

    Original file (AR20090007523.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 21 August 2008, after careful consideration of medical records, laboratory findings, and medical examinations, the Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSB) found that the applicant was medically unfit for enlistment in accordance with current medical fitness standards, he was diagnosed with a pre existing left foot hallux. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090009328

    Original file (AR20090009328.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? The characterization of service for Soldiers separated under this provision of the regulation will normally be honorable. Army Regulation 635-200 states that a Soldier is in an entry-level status if the Soldier has not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty prior to the initiation of separation action.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080005107

    Original file (AR20080005107.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 8 September 1994, after careful consideration of medical records, laboratory findings, and medical examinations, the Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSB) found that the applicant was medically unfit for enlistment in accordance with current medical fitness standards, she was diagnosed with an anterior cruciate ligament deficient left knee, and in the opinion of the evaluating physicians the condition...