Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2010/07/15	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he requests an upgrade of his discharge to fully honorable.  He contends that his duty performance was exemplary up to the time of his injury.  He further contends that the discharge is prreventing him from receiving benefits under the State of Wisconsin Regulations even though he is receiving VA benefits.

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: 	NIF   Date: NIF
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 070921   Chapter: 4-24b(3)      AR: 635-40
Reason: Disability, Severance Pay	   RE:     SPD: JFL   Unit/Location: G Co, 232nd Med Bn (Trainee), Fort Sam Houston, TX 

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:  19
Current ENL Date: 070328    Current ENL Term: 04 Years  with a medical waiver (070313)
Current ENL Service: 	00  Yrs, 05 Mos, 24 Days ?????
Total Service:  		00  Yrs, 05 Mos, 24 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-1		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: None   GT: 111   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Manitowoc, WI 
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 17 August 2007, a Medical Evaluation Board diagnosed the applicant with a medical condition that made him unfit to perform his military duties and referred him to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  
       
       On 5 September 2007, a PEB determined that the applicant was physically unfit to perform his military duties due to a condition (posterior thoracic pain and right knee retropatellar pain) that occurred in line of duty and was not due to his own misconduct.  The PEB recommended separation with severance pay.  
       
       On 6 September 2007, having been informed of the findings and recommendations of the PEB, the applicant concurred with the PEB’s findings and recommendations and waived a formal hearing of his case.  
       
       On 21 September 2007, HQS, U.S. Army Medical Department Center & School, Fort Sam Houston, TX, Orders 264-0101, discharged the applicant from the Regular Army effective:  21 September 2007, with an uncharacterized discharge.  

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of a physical disability.  Chapter 4, provides for the separation of enlisted Soldiers found to be unfit by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) due to a condition which occurred in line of duty and not due do to the Soldier’s misconduct.  Paragraph 4-24b(3) provides that Soldiers not having sufficient time in service for retirement would be separated by reason of disability with severance pay.  The characterization of service for Soldiers separated under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 635-40 will normally be honorable unless the Soldier is in an entry-level status.  The service of Soldiers in an entry-level status will be uncharacterized.  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 during the period of enlistment under review, the issue and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  
       
       The proceedings of the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) determined that the applicant was physically unfit to perform his military duties due to a condition that occurred in the line of duty and was not due to his own misconduct.  The applicant agreed with these findings and waived a formal hearing of his case.  The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected through the separation process.   
       
       Army Regulation 635-200 provides in pertinent part, that a Soldier is in entry-level status 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.  Absence evidence to the contrary, the analyst presumes that the applicant’s separation was initiated while he was still in entry-level status and the applicant’s separation was accomplished within 72 hours following approval by the separation authority.  
       
       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.  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. 
       
             The applicant contends that his duty performance was exemplary up to the time of his injury. The analyst considered the quality of the applicant's service during the initial portion of the  period of enlistment under review.  However, this period of service was determined not to be sufficiently meritorious to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review.
       
       The applicant further contends that his discharge (i.e., uncharacterized) is preventing him from receiving benefits under the State of Wisconsin Regulations even though he is receiving VA benefits.  This is not an adverse separation action and denotes only that the individual had less than 180 days on active duty. 
       
       Furthermore, regarding the applicant's contention about being unable to receive benefits under the State of Wisconsin Regulations; this contention does not fall within the purview of this Board.  The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), utilizing the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter.  A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. 
       Therefore, the analyst determined the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board deny relief.
       
VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 8 April 2011         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel:  [ redacted ]

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 149, dated (100709); Letter, Veterans Service Office, dated (100709); Letter, State of Wisconsin, Department of Veterans Affairs, dated (100625); Letter, Department of Veterans Affairs, dated (100412); Discharge Orders 264-0101, dated (070921); DD Form 214, dated (070921); Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings, two (2) pages, dated (070905), with six (6) pages of Medical Documents; Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Proceedings, dated (070817), with eight (8) pages of Medical Documents. 

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: None








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 AR20100019297
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 3 of 3 pages