Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2009/08/14 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states in effect that he always had problems passing the APFT, was recycled in basic training and continued to have problems with PT while at Fort Leonard Wood and again at Redstone Arsenal. He should have never been in the Army and blames his recruiter, the MEPS doctor, the drill sergeant and his last company commander for not being in the same page and for his inability to pass the APFT. He would like his educational benefits and a job in the law enforcement field. 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: 081020 Discharge Received: Date: 090203 Chapter: 13 AR: 635-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance RE: SPD: JHJ Unit/Location: Co B, 832d OD Bn, Redstone Arsenal, AL 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: 070823 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 05Mos, 11Days ????? Total Service: 01 Yrs, 05Mos, 11Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 09B10/Trainee GT: 108 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: None listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 20 October 2008, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance for failing two consecutive record Army Physical Fitness Tests (APFT) and seven diagnostic APFTs, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The unit commander noted that the applicant had no medical limitations that prohibited him from taking the APFT. He was advised of his rights. On 24 November 2008, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval with a general under honorable discharge. On 27 January 2009, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13-2e of this regulation, states in pertinent part, that separation proceedings will be initiated for Soldiers without medical limitations who have two consecutive failures of the Army Physical Fitness Test. The reason for discharge will be shown as unsatisfactory performance. Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance for failure of the Army Physical Fitness Test will be characterized as honorable or general, under honorable conditions. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records and the issue and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as the incidents of unsatisfactory performance. The analyst determined that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. By his unsatisfactory performance, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting a fully honorable characterization of service. The applicant contends that everyone in the recruitment and training process is to blame for his inability to pass the APFT and does not accept responsibility for his unsatisfactory performance. After a careful review of the applicant’s entire record, 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. Further, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. Additionally, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Therefore, 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: 7 July 2010 Location: Washington, D.C. Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 149, a self-authored statement and DD Form 214. VIII. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation Notwithstanding the analyst’s recommendation and after carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh and as a result it is inequitable based on the circumstances surrounding the discharge in that failing the APFT was the only reason for the applicant's discharge. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable. Furthermore, regulations currently in effect list the reason for the applicant’s discharge as physical standards. Accordingly, the Board voted to change the narrative reason for separation on the DD Form 214 to "Physical Standards" with the corresponding separation code of "JFT." IX. Board Decision XI. Certification Signature Board Vote: Approval Authority: Character - Change 4 No change 1 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: Physical Standards Other: Change block 28, narrative reason for separation to "Physical Standards" with a corresponding separation code, block 26 to "JFT." RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA 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 AR20090014505 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages