Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/08/14	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states in effect that he always had problems passing the APFT, was recycled in basic training and continued to have problems with PT while at Fort Leonard Wood and again at Redstone Arsenal.  He should have never been in the Army and blames his recruiter, the MEPS doctor, the drill sergeant and his last company commander for not being in the same page and for his inability to pass the APFT.  He would like his educational benefits and a job in the law enforcement field.

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: 081020
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 090203   Chapter: 13    AR: 635-200
Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance	   RE:     SPD: JHJ   Unit/Location: Co B, 832d OD Bn, Redstone Arsenal, AL 

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:  18
Current ENL Date: 070823    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 05Mos, 11Days ?????
Total Service:  		01 Yrs, 05Mos, 11Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 09B10/Trainee   GT: 108   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM

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 20 October 2008, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance for failing two consecutive record Army Physical Fitness Tests (APFT) and seven diagnostic APFTs, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  The unit commander noted that the applicant had no medical limitations that prohibited him from taking the APFT.  He was advised of his rights. 
       
       On 24 November 2008, 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 unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval with a general under honorable discharge.  
       
       On 27 January 2009, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13-2e of this regulation, states in pertinent part, that separation proceedings will be initiated for Soldiers without medical limitations who have two consecutive failures of the Army Physical Fitness Test.  The reason for discharge will be shown as unsatisfactory performance.  Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance for failure of the Army Physical Fitness Test will be characterized as honorable or general, under honorable conditions.

       c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
       After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records and the issue and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as the incidents of unsatisfactory performance.  
       
       The analyst determined that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  By his unsatisfactory performance, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting a fully honorable characterization of service.  
       
       The applicant contends that everyone in the recruitment and training process is to blame for his inability to pass the APFT and does not accept responsibility for his unsatisfactory performance.  After a careful review of the applicant’s entire record, the analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  
       
       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.  Additionally, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.
       
       Therefore, the analyst determined 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: 7 July 2010         Location: Washington, D.C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 149, a self-authored statement and DD Form 214.

VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
Notwithstanding the analyst’s recommendation and after carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh and as a result it is inequitable based on the circumstances surrounding the discharge in that failing the APFT was the only reason for the applicant's discharge.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable.  Furthermore, regulations currently in effect list the reason for the applicant’s discharge as physical standards.  Accordingly, the Board voted to change the narrative reason for separation on the DD Form 214 to "Physical Standards" with the corresponding separation code of "JFT."   
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 4    No change 1
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: Physical Standards
Other: Change block 28, narrative reason for separation to "Physical Standards" with a corresponding separation code, block 26 to "JFT."										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA













Legend:
AWOL    	Absent Without Leave		GCM   General Court Martial	NA   Not applicable			SCM	Summary Court Martial
BCD   	Bad Conduct Discharge	GD      General Discharge	NIF   Not in the file			SPCM	Special Court Martial
CG 	Company Grade Article 15	HD      Honorable Discharge	OAD   Ordered to Active Duty		UNC	Uncharacterized Discharge  
DD 	Dishonorable Discharge	HS       High School Graduate	OMPF   Official Military Personnel File	UOTH  	Under Other Than Honorable 
FG	Field Grade Article 15		IADT   Initial Active Duty Training	RE     Reentry Code				Conditions 

ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090014505
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages