Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 081105	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 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: 940317
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 940330   Chapter: 5-11    AR: 635-200
Reason: Did Not Meet Procurement Med Fitness Standard, No Disability	   RE:     SPD: JFW          Unit/Location: E Co, 2d Bn, 58th Inf Training, USAIS, Ft. Benning, GA 

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: 940118    Current ENL Term: 03 Years  17 Weeks
Current ENL Service: 	00 Yrs, 02 Mos, 13 Days ?????
Total Service:  		00 Yrs, 02 Mos, 13 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E1		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: None   GT: 114   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: None

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Taylorsville, UT
Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted by the Applicant.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
        The record of evidence shows that an Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) convened on 11 March 1994 and determined that the Applicant’s medical condition of back pain dated back to prior to entry into the Army.  The EPSBD recommended the Applicant be discharged from the Army under the provisions of chapter 5, paragraph 5-11, AR 635-200.  The Applicant reviewed and concurred with the findings of the EPSBD proceedings, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service.  On 24 March 1994, 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 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 his discharge from the Army, however the Applicant’s record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) not 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.  A fully honorable discharge is not authorized under ELS conditions.  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.  If the Applicant desires to appear before a personal appearance Board, the burden of proof remains with the former Soldier to provide the appropriate documents or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board’s consideration.  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 that the Board deny relief.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 19 August 2009         Location: Washington, D.C.

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: No Change
Other: No Change										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: No Change
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080017907
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages