IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 October 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140004205 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 of his uncharacterized discharge to honorable, a change to the narrative reason for his discharge and reentry (RE) code. 2. The applicant states, in effect, the reason for his discharge states he failed medical, physical and procurement standards however, he states it was already known that he had knee and lower back injuries from his service in the Navy. He states he was seen by a doctor before joining and was accepted into military service. He stated during training, his injuries worsened due to the stress. He was able to work in the office but his injuries affected his ability to perform his primary duties as an 88M, Transport Operator. He states the narrative reason for his discharge alluded that he lied about his enlistment which is untrue. He would like his discharge corrected so he can rejoin military service in a MOS that will not aggravate his injuries. He states he does not have any supporting documents from a doctor because he was in a different state and had no idea where he was taken. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 5 March 2014 b. Discharge Received: Uncharacterized c. Date of Discharge: 29 June 2009 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Failed Medical/Physical/Procurement Standard, AR 635-200, Chapter 5, Paragraph 5-11, JFW, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: Company B, 58th Transportation Battalion, Fort Leonard Wood, MO f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 6 January 2009/3 years, 14 weeks g. Current Enlistment Service: 5 months, 24 days h. Total Service: 5 months, 24 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3 l. Military Occupational Specialty: None m. GT Score: 88 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: None r. Administrative Separation Board: NA s. Performance Ratings: NA t. Counseling Statements: No u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 January 2009, for a period of 3 years and 14 weeks. He was 25 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. His record is void of any significant acts of valor and achievement. He completed 5 months and 24 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. On 2 June 2009, an Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSB) convened and determined the applicant’s medical condition of right knee pain existed prior to entry into the Army. The applicant reviewed and concurred with the findings of the EPSB, requested discharge without delay and did not submit a statement on his behalf. 2. On 18 June 2009, the unit commander recommended the applicant be retained in the military. 3. On 19 June 2009, the separation authority directed the applicant be retained on active duty. 4. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 5 December 2001, with a characterization of service listed as uncharacterized. 5. The applicant’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: DA Form 4707-E (EPSB Proceedings), dated 2 June 2009, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with right patellofemoral pain, a condition that existed prior to service. The unit commander recommended retention in the military and the discharge authority approved the applicant to be retained on active duty. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided an online application, dated 15 January 2014, a DD Form 214, and health records. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant did not provide any in support of his application. 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. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge, a change to the narrative reason and RE code was carefully considered. However, after a careful review of the applicant’s military records, and the issues 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 unit commander recommended the applicant be retained on active duty and the discharge authority approved this recommendation. The applicant agreed with the findings of the EPSB and requested to be discharged from the Army without delay. 3. A Soldier is in entry-level status 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 that a change in the reason for the discharge and his reentry code would allow for his reenlistment. However, 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, paragraph 5-11, for failing medical, physical, and procurement standards. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. 5. Further, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3. There is no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code. 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 a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters 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. 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: 22 October 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? No Counsel: None 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 Authority for Separation: No Change Change RE Code to: No Change Grade Restoration to: NA 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) AR20140004205 Page 5 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1