IN THE CASE OF:  

      BOARD DATE:  	23 October 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130007412
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.




      
      
      Presiding Officer
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case.

THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND STATEMENT:

1.  The applicant requests an upgrade to his characterization from uncharacterized to honorable and a change to the narrative reason to medical release for his discharge.

2.  He states, in effect, he served over 180 days and received an uncharacterized discharge due to his left wrist.  The military medical examiners stated that his wrist was injured before service due to a motorcycle incident in Iran in 2006.  This is not true.  His wrist was not a problem and he was completely healed from any injuries when he signed up for the Army.  He believes that the medical examiner came to the wrong conclusion because English is a second language and he had trouble explaining things.  His wrist was injured while exercising in basic training in an open field with his unit.  During his first PT Test he did 31 push-ups, during the 2nd PT test, he did 41 push-ups and on the 4th test he did only 10 push-ups.  During the 4th PT test he lifted his left hand because he felt a small discomfort.  His drill sergeant disqualified him from the PT Test because he lifted his hand from the ground.  His commander told him to go to the hospital to get it examined.  The medical examiner asked if he ever injured his wrist before service, he told him about the motorcycle accident in 2006, and he stated this is how his wrist got injured and that he lied to get into the service.  The motorcycle accident had nothing to do with his wrist and his MEPS testing and his PT results will show that his wrist was fine and not a problem.  He did not want to get taken out of the Service. 

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		15 April 2012
b. Discharge Received:		Uncharacterized
c. Date of Discharge:			22 January 2013
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Failed Medical Procurement Standards, AR 635-200 						Chapter 5-11, JFW, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			C Co, 1st Battalion, 61st IN, TR, Fort Jackson, SC
f.  Current Enlistment Date/Term:	9 July 2012, , 3 years and 37 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service:	0 years, 6 months, 14 days
h. Total Service:			0 years, 6 months, 14 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4	
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	None
m. GT Score:				91
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			None
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		None
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		None
t. Counseling Statements:		None	
u. Prior Board Review:			No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 July 2012, for a period of 3 years and 37 weeks.  He was 33 years old at the time of entry and was a high school graduate.  He did not serve overseas and was assigned to Fort Jackson, SC.  His record does not indicate that he received any awards.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

1.  On 4 January 2013, an Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSB) convened and determined the applicant was suffering from a medical condition of nonunion of fracture carpal bones scaphoid.    

2.  On 11 January 2013, the applicant reviewed and concurred with the findings of the EPSB, requested discharge without delay, and did not submit any statement on his behalf.  

3.  On 11 January 2013, the unit commander recommended separation from the Service 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 conditions discharge.  

4.  The applicant was discharged on 22 January 2013, for failing to meet medical procurement standards with the separation code JFW.  Records further show his service listed as an uncharacterized conditions discharge and he had served for 5 months and 26 days when the EPSB convened.  

5.  The applicant’s record does not contain any documented AWOL or lost time.  

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD

There are no counseling statements in his record.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 

A DA Form 4707, dated 10 July 2012, with the following findings:  Three views of the left wrist demonstrated an old fracture through the scaphoid waist with mild fragmentation of the distal pole.  Joint spaces preserved. Impression: Scaphoid waist fracture.   

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None stated by the applicant.  

REGULATORY AUTHORITY

1.  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.  

2.  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.  

3.  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. 

4.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  It identifies the SPD code of "JFW" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5, paragraph 5-11, for failure to meet medical or physical procurement standards.  

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered.  However, after a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, and the issue and documents submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  

2.  The proceedings of the EPSB revealed the applicant had a medical condition which 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.    

3.  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, a general, under honorable conditions discharge is not authorized under ELS conditions and an 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 applicant’s record confirms that no such unusual circumstances were present and his service did not warrant an honorable discharge.  

4.  The applicant contends the discharge was unjust because the motorcycle accident didn’t have anything to do with his wrist and the misunderstanding came from the language barrier.   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 this issue.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged.  In fact, on 11 January 2013, the applicant reviewed and concurred with the findings of the EPSB, requested discharge without delay, and did not submit any statement on his behalf.  The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge.   

5.  The applicant requests a change to the reason for his discharge and the separation code; however, the reason for separation is governed by specific directives.  The applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 5, paragraph 5-11, AR 635-200.  The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Failed Medical/Physical/ Procurement Standards,” and the separation code is "JFW."  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 or codes to be entered under this regulation.    

6.  All the requirements of law and regulation were met and that the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

7.  Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief. 
















SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing: Record Review 	  Date:  23 October 2013              Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No 

Counsel: Yes

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

Board Action Directed:
Issue a new DD Form 214:			No
Change Characterization to:		No Change
Change Reason to:				No Change
Change RE Code to:			No Change
Grade Restoration to:			NA
Change Authority for Separation:		No Change
Other:						NA






















Legend:
AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record	FG - Field Grade	IADT – Initial Active Duty Training	 	RE - Reentry
AWOL - Absent Without Leave	GD - General Discharge	NA - Not applicable	SCM- Summary Court Martial
BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge	HS - High School	NIF - Not in File	SPCM - Special Court Martial
CG - Company Grade Article 15	HD - Honorable Discharge	OAD - Ordered to Active Duty	UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge  
CID - Criminal investigation Department	MP – Military Police	OMPF - Official Military Personnel File	UOTHC - Under Other Than                           			               Honorable Conditions


ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont)		AR20130007412



Page 3 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1