Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/05/12	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: 990318
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 990326   Chapter: 5-11       AR: 635-200
Reason: Failure to Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standards	   RE:     SPD: JFW   Unit/Location: A Btry, 1/79th FA, Ft Sill, OK 

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:  23
Current ENL Date: 981112    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	00 Yrs, 04Mos, 15Days ?????
Total Service:  		00 Yrs, 04Mos, 15Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E1		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: None   GT: 104   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: None

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Grand Island, NY
Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted by the applicant.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 18 March 1999, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of involuntary separation action 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.  An Entrance Physical Standards Board convened on 3 March 1999 and determined that the applicant’s medical condition of bilateral knee pain dated back to prior to entry into the Army.  The applicant reviewed and concurred with the findings of the Entrance Physical Standard Board (EPSB) proceedings.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Service.  
       On 22 March 1999, 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 the regulation will normally be honorable.  However for Soldiers in entry-level status, it will be uncharacterized.  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 and documents he submitted, to include his supporting documents, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  
       The proceedings of the Entrance 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.  Further, 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.  
       Furthermore, the U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 293 requesting a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.  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.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.  
       In view of the foregoing, the analyst recommends to the Board that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service remain both proper and equitable. 

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 17 March 2010         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: No Change
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090009328
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages