Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/05/19	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, he wants to be able to receive educational and other benefits available from the Veterans Affairs Department. He has been denied because of the characterization on his DD Form 214.

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: 980129
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 980223   Chapter: 5-11       AR: 635-200
Reason: Failure to Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standards	   RE:     SPD: JFW   Unit/Location: A Company, 16th Ordnance Battalion, 61st Ordnance Brigade, US Army Ordnance Center and School, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005 

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:  17
Current ENL Date: 970819    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	0 Yrs, 6 Mos, 5 Days ?????
Total Service:  		0 Yrs, 6 Mos, 5 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-1		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 45G00 Fire Control Repairer/Trainee   GT: 95   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 23 January 1998, an Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) convened on and determined that the applicant’s medical condition, which was diagnosed as: bilateral pes planus with bilateral eversion of feet; tenderness to palpation; pes planus is moderate to severe, and in the opinion of the evaluating physicians the condition(s) existed prior to service.  On 26 January 1998, the unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service under the provisions of Chapter 5, paragraph 5-11, AR 635-200, by reason of failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards with an uncharacterized discharge.  On 26 January 1998, the applicant was informed of the Physical Evaluation Board findings.  The applicant concurred with the findings of the Entrance Physical Standard Board (EPSBD) proceedings, and requested to be discharged  from the US Army without delay.  On 10 February 1998, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.   The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval with an uncharacterized discharge.  On 14 February 1998, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with an uncharacterized discharge.

       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 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, and the issue he 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 his separation is initiated while the soldier is in entry level status.  Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue; however, 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.  Further, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  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: 24 April 2009         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: NA 









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
X.  Board Action Directed					         President, Army Discharge Review Board
Issue a new DD Form 214  					
Change Characterization to: 			         
Change Reason to: NA
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080008133
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages