Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070013901
Original file (AR20070013901.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Applicant Name: ?????

Application Receipt Date: 071009	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See DD Form 293 and documents submitted by the applicant.

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: 990305   
Chapter: 13     AR: 635-200
Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance
RE:     SPD: JHJ
Unit/Location: SPT Co, 2nd Bn, 10th SFG, Fort Carson, CO 

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:  6610  
HOR City, State: Saint Cloud, FL
Current ENL Date: 970122    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 01Mos, 13Days ?????
Total Service:  09 Yrs, 04Mos, 06Days ?????
Previous Discharges: USCG 870323-940315/HD
Highest Grade: E-4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92Y10 Supply Specalist   GT: 100   EDU: GED   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, NDSM, HSM, 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 the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance for failing two record Army Physical Fitness Tests (the dates and documentation are not contained in the available file) with a general under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an Administrative Separation Board contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval with a general under honorable discharge.  On  05 March 1999, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a general under honorable conditions discharge.  The applicant was transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve.?????

      b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13-2e of this regulation, states in pertinent part, that separation proceedings will be initiated for soldiers without medical limitations who have two consecutive failures of the Army Physical Fitness Test.  The reason for discharge will be shown as unsatisfactory performance.  Service of soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance for failure of the Army Physical Fitness Test will be characterized as honorable or general, under honorable conditions.
      

      c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
      After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records for the period of enlistment under review, and the issue he submitted, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge to fully honorable.  The analyst noted that the applicant was discharged for the sole reason of a failure to meet the minimum standards of the Army Physical Fitness Test.  The analyst also noted the lack of any other derogatory information in the record.  In view of the foregoing, the analyst recommends that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to fully honorable.  However, the analyst found that the reason for discharge was fully supported by the record and therefore, remains both proper and equitable

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 080813              
Location: Washington DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: None 

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 3    No change 2   - 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 characterization of service was too harsh and as a result it is inequitable.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable.  Furthermore, regulations currently in effect list the reason for the applicant’s discharge as physical standards.  Accordingly, the Board voted to change the narrative reason for separation on the DD Form 214 to "Physical Standards" with the corresponding separation code of "JFT."   

								        
X.  Board Action Directed
No Change 
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to:    
Change Reason to: Physical Standards with Corresponding Separation Code of "JFT"
Other: NA
RE Code:  
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes  Grade: None

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

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

Official: 


CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON			DATE: 080813
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070013901
______________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 5 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070013581

    Original file (AR20070013581.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 06Mos, 03Days ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 26 August 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance for APFT failure on more than two occasions and for not showing progress after being entered in the weight control program on 13 August 2002, with a general under honorable conditions discharge. ...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060013040

    Original file (AR20060013040.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 04 Mos, 07 Days ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 11 September 2002, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance (failed two consecutive record Army Physical Fitness Tests on 1 July and 29 September), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. Certification Signature and Date Approval...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090012921

    Original file (AR20090012921.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance for failure of the Army Physical Fitness Test will be characterized as honorable or general, under honorable conditions c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records for the period of enlistment under review, and the issue she submitted, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge to fully...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090009674

    Original file (AR20090009674.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 26 September 2007, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance for two consecutive failures of the Army physical fitness test with a honorable conditions discharge. Accordingly, the analyst recommends to the Board that the narrative reason for separation on the DD Form 214 be changed to "Physical Standards"...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2011 | AR20110018672

    Original file (AR20110018672.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 18 April 2011, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance for failing two consecutive Army Physical Fitness Tests (APFTs), with a fully honorable discharge. On 27 April 2011, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be separated, with a general, under...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | AR20110005216

    Original file (AR20110005216.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Accordingly, the analyst recommends to the Board that the narrative reason for separation on the DD Form 214 be changed to "Physical Standards" with the corresponding separation (SPD) code of "JFT." Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: Online application and DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: Physical Standards" with...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070016534

    Original file (AR20070016534.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Applicant states, "At the time of discharge, my Unit commander was unhappy with my decision to get out after being held in over my original ETS date. Accordingly, the analyst recommends to the Board that the narrative reason for separation on the DD Form 214 be changed to "Physical Standards" with the corresponding separation code of "JFT."

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080016100

    Original file (AR20080016100.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 12 March 2007, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance for failure of two consecutive record Army Physical Fitness Tests, with an honorable discharge. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to:...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080014684

    Original file (AR20080014684.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Accordingly, the analyst recommends to the Board that the narrative reason for separation on the DD Form 214 be changed to current standards "Physical Standards" with the corresponding separation code of "JFT." Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: Current Standards "Physical Standards" with the corresponding separation code (SPD) of "JFT" under provision of Chapter 13, AR 635-200.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080007511

    Original file (AR20080007511.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Accordingly, the analyst recommends to the Board that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to fully honorable. 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 characterization of service is too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable based on the length of the applicant’s his...