Application Receipt Date: 060420	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

I.  Applicant Request
Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293, with Attachment, Department of VA, Rating Decision, dated 1 April 2005 .  The applicant is requesting a change of the reason to medical conditions, existing prior to service.

II.  Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed?  
Yes    No        Tender Offer:   ?????

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Original Character of Discharge
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge:    Date: NIF
Discharge Received:     Date: 040709   
Chapter: 5-11    AR: 635-200
Reason: Failure to Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standards
RE:     SPD: JFW
Unit/Location: Company C, 2nd Battalion 54th Infantry, Training Center, Fort Benning, GA 31905 

Time Lost: None

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

Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  700306  
Current ENL Date: 040324    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 0 Yrs, 3 Mos, 16 Days ?????
Total Service:  0 Yrs, 3 Mos, 16 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E3
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: None   GT: 127   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: None
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: 
Current Address: 
Post Service Accomplishments: None

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The specific facts and circumstances leading to the applicant’s discharge are not contained in the available records.  However, the record contains a properly constituted DD form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).  His DD Form 214 indicates that he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 5, Paragraph 5-11, AR 635-200, for failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards, with service uncharacterized.  Further, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of JFW (i.e., failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards).  The evidence of record also shows that on 9 July 2004, Orders 191-2232, Department of Army, Headquarters, U.S. Army Infantry Center, Fort Benning, Georgia, 31905-5000, discharged the applicant from the Regular Army, effective date: 9 July 2004.

      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 regulation will normally be honorable, but will be uncharacterized if the Soldier is in an entry-level status.  Army Regulation 635-200, provides 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 available records for the period of enlistment under review, and the issue he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to a discharge from the Army, however the applicant’s record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s signature.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 5, Paragraph 5-11, AR 635-200, for failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards, with service uncharacterized.  In connection with such a discharge, the proceedings of an Enlistment Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) would have revealed that the applicant had a medical condition that was disqualifying for enlistment and that it existed prior to entry on active duty.  Subsequently, competent medical authority would have had to approve the findings of the EPSBD.  The applicant would have had to agree with the findings and the proposed action for administrative separation from the Army.  A Soldier is in entry-level status (ELS) for the first 180 days of continuous active duty.  The purpose of the entry-level status is to provide the Soldier a probationary period.  Army Regulation 635-200 also provides, except in cases of serious misconduct, that a soldier’s service will be uncharacterized when his separation is initiated while the Soldier is in entry level status.  Further, for Soldiers in entry-level status, 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, determined  that the reason for the discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable.
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 8 November 2006              
Location: Washington, D.C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: N/A

Witnesses/Observers: N/A 

Exhibits Submitted: N/A




VIII.  Board Decision
The discharge was:			Proper	 	Improper	
				                 	Equitable	 	Inequitable	

The characterization of service was:   Proper	 	Improper	
				                 	Equitable	 	Inequitable	

The narrative reasons were: 	       	Equitable	 	Inequitable	

DRB voting record:  		      	Change     No change    (Character)
		 			       	Change     No change    (Reason)
					      (Board member names available upon request)

IX.  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 not to change it.
























Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. John Zangas, Examiner									        
X.  Board Action Directed
No Change 
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to:    
Change Reason to: ?????
Other: ?????
RE Code:  
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes  Grade: None

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

ROBERT L. HOUSE
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board

Official: 


ESMERALDA G. PROCTOR		DATE: 13 November 2006
Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060005703

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 6 of 6 pages