Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2009/05/29 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 submitted by the applicant. 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: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 090515 Chapter: 4 AR: 635-40 Reason: Disability, Severance Pay, Non-Combat Related RE: SPD: JFO Unit/Location: Co A, 1-48th Inf Bn TR, Ft Leonard Wood, MO 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: 35 Current ENL Date: 090122 Current ENL Term: 3 Years 22 weeks Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 03Mos, 24Days ????? Total Service: 00 Yrs, 03Mos, 24Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E2 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: None GT: 106 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: None V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Republic, MO Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted by the applicant. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 1 April 2009, a Medical Evaluation Board diagnosed the applicant with a medical condition that made her unfit to perform her military duties and referred her to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). On 1 May 2009, a PEB determined that the applicant was physically unfit to perform her military duties due to a condition that occurred in line of duty and was not due to her own misconduct. The PEB recommended separation with severance pay. On 4 May 2009, 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 her case. On 7 May 2009, the Chief Operations Division on behalf of the Secretary of the Army approved the discharged under the provisions of AR 635-40, Paragraph 4-24B(4), by reason of physical disability with severance pay. 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 available military records, and the issue she submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. 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 her separation is initiated while the Soldier is in entry level status. A fully honorable discharge is not authorized under ELS conditions. 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 her service did not warrant an honorable discharge. 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: 14 April 2010 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA 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: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20090009950 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages