Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2012/03/03	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he is requesting for an upgrade, because he feels that his discharge is an injustice for the following reasons:  When he arrived at basic training, he found out his grandmother died.  His grandmother and grandfather had raised him so he had to return home to help his grandfather with the burial.  In addition his wife’s aunt was also dying, so his wife was not able to do both.  He informed his drill sergeants and they sent him to a therapist who said that he had anxiety.  However, the only reason he had anxiety was because he needed to return home to assist his grandfather.  He later found out that he would have been able to apply for a hardship discharge.  He pleads to have his reentry code changed to “1,” so he can reenlist.  He feels the drill sergeants lied to him and gave him false information on leaving when he never wanted to leave.  He did not have anxiety.  He adds to please allow him to reenlist.  Everything is fine with him.  He no longer is facing any kind of hardship.  All his business is settled and he is ready for duty.

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: 101021
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 101116   Chapter: 5-17    AR: 635-200
Reason: Condition, Not a Disability	   RE:     SPD: JFV   Unit/Location: A Co, 2nd Bn, 58th Infantry Regiment, Fort Bennning, 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:  18
Current ENL Date: 100914    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  18 Weeks
Current ENL Service: 	00 Yrs, 02 Mos, 03 Days ?????
Total Service:  		00 Yrs, 02 Mos, 03 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-1		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: None   GT: 110   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: None

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       On 21 October 2010, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 5, paragraph 5-17, AR 635-200, by reason of other designated physical or mental condition for being diagnosed by competent medical authority with an adjustment disorder with anxiety, which is incompatible with military service and recommended the applicant’s discharge with an entry level uncharacterized separation of service.  He was advised of his rights.  
       
       On 21 October 2010, the applicant waived consulting with a legal counsel and indicated he understood 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.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with an uncharacterized discharge.  
       
       On 4 November 2010, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with an uncharacterized separation of service.

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-17 specifically provides that a Soldier may be separated for other physical or mental conditions not amounting to a disability under Army Regulation 635-40, which interferes with assignment to or performance of duty.  The regulation requires that the condition interferes with the Soldiers’ ability to perform duty, and requires that the diagnosis be so severe that the Soldier’s ability to function in the military environment is significantly impaired.  Army Regulation 635-200 states that a Soldier being separated under this paragraph will be awarded a characterization of service of honorable, under honorable conditions, or an uncharacterized description of service if in entry-level status.  A general, under honorable conditions discharge is normally inappropriate for individuals separated under the provisions of Chapter 5-17 unless properly notified of the specific factors in the service that warrant such characterization.

       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, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge or a change to the narrative reason for his discharge.  
       
       The evidence of record shows the applicant while in training status was diagnosed by competent medical authority with an adjustment disorder with anxiety and he was not able to complete training with this condition.  It was determined this physical condition interfered with his ability to perform his duties and the diagnosis was so severe that the former Soldier’s ability to function in the military environment was significantly impaired.  
       
       The applicant’s service was uncharacterized because he was in an entry-level status.  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 the separation is initiated while the Soldier is in entry level status.  
       
       Further, a general, under honorable conditions discharge is not authorized under ELS conditions and 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 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.  
       
       Furthermore, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 5-17, AR 635-200, by reason of a condition, not a disability with an uncharacterized discharge.  The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Condition, Not a Disability” and the separation code is "JFV."  Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be entered exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes.  The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized.  There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. 
       
       
       The analyst noted the applicant's issue about his desire to rejoin the Service.  However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry (RE) codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  The applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3.  The analyst found no basis upon which to recommend a change to the applicant’s reason for discharge.  An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist.  If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact the local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist.  Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. 
       
       Further, the applicant contends that he was unjustly and unfairly discharged.  However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence or documentation to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged.  In fact, several counseling statements indicated his difficulties coping with stress and adjusting to the Army way of life and was referred the community mental health services where he was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with anxiety.  The applicant’s statement alone does not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.  The burden of proof remains with the former Soldier to provide the appropriate documents or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts and circumstances leading to his diagnosis of an adjustment disorder.  If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will still be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof since the evidence is not available in the official record.  The application to appear before this Board must be received prior to the 15th year anniversary of the applicant’s discharge.
       
       The analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.
       
       In view of the foregoing, 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: 27 July 2012         Location: Washington, D.C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293, dated 15 February 2012; Spouse statement of support, dated 20 February 2012; Social Security and driver's license (copies); Medical statement, dated 20 February 2012; DD Form 214 for service under current review.












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						
Board Vote:
Character - Change 0    No change 5
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)

X.  Board Action Directed
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to: 
Change Reason to: NA
Other: NA
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA

XI.  Certification Signature
Approval Authority:




ARCHIE L. DAVIS III
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board




BONITA E. TROTMAN
Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army
Secretary Recorder














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 AR20120004670
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 4 pages