Applicant Name: ?????

Application Receipt Date: 070717	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that her discharge is improper, because her pre-service civilian conviction, was properly listed on her enlistment documents and was used in the discharge preceedings.  

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: 040205
Discharge Received:     Date: 040217   
Chapter: 5-11    AR: 635-200
Reason: Failure to Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standards
RE:     SPD: JFW
Unit/Location: Company B, 369th Adjutant General Battalion, Fort Jackson, SC 29207. 

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
Year/Month:  7411  
HOR City, State: Anniston, AL 36201
Current ENL Date: 030919    Current ENL Term: NIF Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 0 Yrs, 4 Mos, 29 Days ?????
Total Service:  0 Yrs, 4 Mos, 29 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E-3
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: None   GT: 95   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record shows that on 28 January 1998, after careful consideration of medical records, laboratory findings, and medical examinations, the Physical Evaluation Board (EPSB) found that the applicant was medically unfit for enlistment in accordance with current medical fitness standards and in the opinion of the evaluating physicians the conditions(s) existed prior to service.  On 4 February 1998, the medical approving authority approved the findings of the Physical Evaluation Board (EPSB).  On 20 February 1998, the applicant was informed of the Physical Evaluation Board findings and advised of her rights.  The applicant stated that she understood that legal advice of an attorney employed by the Army was available to her or that she may consult civilian counsel at her own expense.  The applicant concurred with the medical proceedings, and requested to be discharged from the US Army.  On 12 March 1998, the unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service.  On 18 March 1998, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with an uncharacterized separation of service.  

      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 military records, and the issue she submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  The proceedings of the Enlistment Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) revealed that the applicant had a medical condition that was disqualifying for enlistment and that it existed prior to entry on active duty.  Subsequently, these findings were approved by competent medical authority.  The applicant agreed with these findings and the proposed action for administrative separation from the Army.  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.  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 her 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 her service did not warrant an honorable discharge.  Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue and found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined that 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: 2 July 2008              
Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: NA




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 0    No change 5   - Character
		 			      Change 0    No change 5   - 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 to deny relief. 

								        
X.  Board Action Directed
No Change 
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 and Date
Approval Authority: 

MARK E. COLLINS
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board

Official: 


CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON			DATE: 15 July 2008
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070009929
______________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 4 pages