Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/02/01	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

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

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: NIF
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 991115   Chapter: 4-24B(3)       AR: 635-40
Reason: Disability, Severance Pay	   RE:     SPD: JFL   Unit/Location: Co E, 1st BN, 61 INF TC, Ft Jackson, SC 

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:  19
Current ENL Date: IADT 981027    Current ENL Term: NIF Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	1 Yrs, 00Mos, 19Days ?????
Total Service:  		1 Yrs, 00Mos, 19Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	ARNG 980911-991123/UNC (Concurrent Service)
Highest Grade: E-1		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: None   GT: 99   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 shows that on 16 August 1999, a Medical Evaluation Board diagnosed the applicant with a medical condition that made her unfit to perform her military duties and referred her to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  On 8 September 1999, a PEB determined that the applicant was physically unfit to perform her military duties due to a condition that occurred in line of duty and was not due to her own misconduct.  The PEB recommended separation without severance pay.  On 10 September 1999, having been informed of the findings and recommendations of the PEB, the applicant concurred with the PEB’s findings and recommendations and waived a formal hearing of her case.  The separation approving authority directing the characterization of discharge is not contained in the available record and the analyst is presuming Government regularity in the discharge process. However, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214, (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature.  The DD Form 214 indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 635-40, paragraph 24B (3) by reason of disability, severance pay, with an uncharacterized separation of service.  Furthermore, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of JFL (i.e., disability, severance pay).  On 17 December 1999, State of Ohio, Adjutant General's Department, Columbus, Ohio, 43235, issued Orders 241-107, which discharged the applicant from the Army National Guard, with an effective date of 23 November 1999. 

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
             Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of a physical disability.  Chapter 4, provides for the separation of enlisted Soldiers found to be unfit by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) due to a condition which occurred in line of duty and not due do to the Soldier’s misconduct.  Paragraph 4-24b(3) provides that Soldiers not having sufficient time in service for retirement would be separated by reason of disability with severance pay.  The characterization of service for Soldiers separated under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 635-40 will normally be honorable unless the Soldier is in an entry-level status.  The service of Soldiers in an entry-level status will be uncharacterized.  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 military records during the period of enlistment under review, the issue and documents she submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  The analyst noted that the applicant was in an entry level status at the time of initiation of the separation action.  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.  Absence evidence to the contrary, the analyst presumes that the applicant’s separation was initiated while she was still in entry-level status and the applicant’s separation was accomplished within 72 hours following approval by the separation authority.  Furthermore, 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.  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.  Therefore, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable. 

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 5 December 2008         Location: Washington, D. C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: No

Witnesses/Observers: No 

Exhibits Submitted: No

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						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 0    No change 5
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)
								         EDGAR J. YANGER			 
								         Colonel, U.S. Army
								         President, Army Discharge Review Board
Issue a new DD Form 214  					
Change Characterization to: 			         
Change Reason to: No Change
Other: NA										
RE Code: 									 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: ?????
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080003055
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages