Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 070719 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See enclosed DD Form 293 submitted by the applicant. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Yes No Tender Offer: ????? See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Original Character of Discharge Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 050505 Chapter: 5-11 AR: 635-200 Reason: Failure to Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standards RE: SPD: JFW Unit/Location: D Co, 2/13th Inf Bn, Fort Jackson, SC Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Year/Month: 1987/02 HOR City, State: Detroit, MI Current ENL Date: 050301 Current ENL Term: 04 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 02Mos, 05Days ????? Total Service: 00 Yrs, 02Mos, 05Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: None GT: NIF EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: None V. Post-Discharge Activity Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The specific facts and circumstances leading to the applicant's discharge from the Army are not contained in the available records. However, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214, (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. His DD Form 214 indicates that he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 5, Paragraph 5-11, AR 635-200, for failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards, with service uncharacterized. Further, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of JFW (i.e., failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards) with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of "3." On 27 April 2005, Orders 117-1303, DA, HQ, US Army Training Center and Fort Jackson, Fort Jackson, South Carolina, discharged the applicant from the Regular Army, effective date: 5 May 2005. 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 regulation will normally be honorable, but will be uncharacterized if the Soldier is in an entry-level status. 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 available military records for the period of enlistment under review and the issue he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to a discharge from the Army, however the applicant’s record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s signature. This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the analyst presumed Government Regularity in the discharge process. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 5, Paragraph 5-11, AR 635-200, for failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards with service uncharacterized. In connection with such a discharge, the proceedings of an Enlistment Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) would have revealed that the applicant had a medical condition that was disqualifying for enlistment and that it existed prior to entry on active duty. Subsequently, competent medical authority would have had to approve the findings of the EPSBD. The applicant would have had to agree with the findings and the proposed action for administrative separation from the Army. 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. A general, under honorable conditions discharge is not authorized under ELS conditions. 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. Furthermore, if the applicant desires to reenlist, he should contact the local recruiter to determine his eligibility to reenlist. Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Armed Forces at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes. In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends that the Board deny relief. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 2 July 2008 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA VIII. Board Decision The discharge was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The characterization of service was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The narrative reasons were: Equitable Inequitable DRB voting record: Change 0 No change 5 - Character Change 0 No change 5 - Reason (Board member names available upon request) IX. 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. X. Board Action Directed No Change 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 and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 11 July 2008 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20070009956 ______________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 6 pages