IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 27 March 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140007496 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 a change to the narrative reason for separation and separation code. 2. The applicant states, in effect, she did not have a disability prior to joining the military. The applicant contends, the separation code she was given prevents her from receiving benefits from different organizations. The applicant states, she received a compensation of $7204.80 for her time in the service and now has to pay it back due to receiving a 10 percent disability rating from the VA. The applicant contends, her discharge was not true because someone would have noticed it during her 6.5 years of service. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 28 April 2014 b. Discharge Received: Honorable c. Date of Discharge: 2 August 2003 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Disability, Existed Prior to Service, Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), AR 635-40, Chapter 4-24b(4), JFM, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: D Company, 123d Medical Services Battalion, Wiesbaden, Germany f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 22 May 2001/4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 2 months, 12 days h. Total Service: 6 years, 7 months, 1 day i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: RA, 970102-000515, HD RA, 000516-010521, HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist m. GT Score: NIF n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Germany p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, AFEM, ASR, NATO MDL r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: N/A t. Counseling Statements: No u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 January 1997 for a period of 4 years. She was 19 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. She reenlisted on 16 May 2000 for a period of 2 years, with a subsequent reenlistment on 22 May 2001 for a period of 4 years. She served in Germany. She earned two AAMs and completed 6 years, 7 months, and 1 day of active duty service. When her discharge proceedings were initiated, she was serving in Wiesbaden, Germany. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to her discharge from the Army. 2. The service record record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214, (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. It indicates that on 2 August 2003, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-40, Chapter 4-24b(4) by reason of a disability that existed prior to entry into the Army, and for which she received $7204.80 of severance pay after being evaluated by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The applicant received an honorable characterization of service. 3. The DD Form 214 the applicant received shows a Separation Code of JFM (i.e., Disability Existed Prior to Service, PEB). EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant, reflects the applicant was separated from the Regular Army effective 2 August 2003. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: 1. The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 31 March 2014, and a DD Form 214 covering the period of service under review. 2. Self-authored statement, written by the applicant, states she was discharged three years after being diagnosed with scoliosis. The applicant states, she tested for scoliosis in elementary school, as well as the MEPS prior to entering the military and nothing was found. The applicant states, her two sisters and their children, as well as her own two, have been tested for scoliosis and do not have it. 3. Four letters of support, dated between 23 December 2013 and 8 January 2014, written by members of the applicant’s family. The letters allude to the fact that no one in the family has or ever had scoliosis. In addition, the applicant never complained of any pain back pain throughout her childhood, most notably when she lived and worked on the farm. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: None was provided with the application. REGULATORY AUTHORITY: 1. 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 the line of duty and not due 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. 2. 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. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of her discharge was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, the documents and the issue submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. 2. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to her discharge from the Army. Her 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 presumption of government regularity prevails in the discharge process. 3. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-40, Chapter 4-24b(4) by reason of disability, existed prior to service, physical evaluation board (PEB), with an honorable separation of service. The DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of JFM (i.e., disability, existed prior to service, PEB). 4. The applicant's contentions about not having a disability prior to joining the military and, if so, someone would have noticed it during her 6.5 years of service were carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. 5. It appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and that the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 6. Therefore, based on the available evidence, it appears the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, thus recommend the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 27 March 2015 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? NA Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Board Vote: Character Change: NA No Change: NA 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: NA Change Reason to: No Change Change Authority for Separation: NA Change RE Code to: NA 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) AR20140007496 Page 5 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1