Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/01/21	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See enclosed DD Form 293 and 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: 080804
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 080812   Chapter: 5-11    AR: 635-200
Reason: Failed Medical/Physical/ Procurement Standards	   RE:     SPD: JFW   Unit/Location: HQs, 120th Adjutant General Bn (Reception), 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:  22
Current ENL Date: 080409    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	0 Yrs, 4Mos, 4Days ?????
Total Service:  		0 Yrs, 4Mos, 4Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: None   GT: NIF   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: None

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  St. Marys, PA
Post Service Accomplishments: Nothing provided by the Applicant.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The specific facts and circumstances leading to the applicant's discharge from the Army are not contained in the available records.  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.  Her DD Form 214 indicates that she 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.  Furthermore, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of JFW (i.e., failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards), with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 3.  On 5 August 2008, Orders 218-1205, DA, HQ, United States Army Training Center and Fort Jackson, Ft Jackson, SC, discharged the applicant from the Regular Army, effective date: 12 August 2008.  

       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 she 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 her discharge from the Army, however the applicant’s record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was 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 Entrance 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 her 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 her service did not warrant an honorable discharge.  Further, the analyst noted the applicant’s issue, however, 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.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.  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: 091023         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 AR20090003722
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages