IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE: 2 August 2023

		DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220011451


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  reconsideration of his previous request to change his 
uncharacterized discharge to honorable. He also requests a personal appearance via 
telephone or video.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	Personal Statement
*	DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)

FACTS:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the 
previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of 
Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20210011657, on 12 November 2021.

2.  The applicant states he is not able to use and retain benefits because civilians do not 
know what an uncharacterized discharge is. He is a veteran, and he is entitled to use 
his benefits and the excuse for denying him benefits has nothing to do with him asking 
for this request. His previous history has nothing to do with the privilege of serving in the 
Army. He was told if he was enlisted for 180 days or more, he would be entitled to the 
benefits. He questions why the Board gives veterans a hard time for simple assistance 
and asks the Board to reconsider his request. 

3.  Review of the applicant’s service records shows: 

	a.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 February 1996. He completed basic combat 
training at Fort Knox, KY and was reassigned to Aberdeen Proving Ground for 
completion of MOS (military occupational special) training. 

	b.  On 3 Aril 1996, the applicant’s training unit commander notified the applicant of 
his intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of Army 
Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 7, by 
reason of fraudulent enlistment.  The commander cited the reason for his proposed 
actions, the applicant’s concealment of a misdemeanor arrest for "theft of property" on 
24 December 1994, followed by his conviction.  He was sentenced to 10 days in jail, a 
year’s unsupervised probation, and was fined $255.

	c.  On 4 April 1996, the applicant consulted with counsel and acknowledged that he 
had been advised of the basis for the contemplated actions to accomplish his 
separation under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 7, and its effects; the rights 
available to him; and the effect of any action taken by him in waiving his rights. He 
elected not to provide a statement in his own behalf.

	d.  The applicant submitted a DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement), 9 April 1996, 
wherein he stated that he told his recruiter that he committed a crime on 23 December 
1994, in,. He was charged with theft in a mall and the recruiter told him not to worry 
about it and he would take care of it. If he had known it would have caused a problem, 
he would have stressed the matter to the recruiter. He did not try to hide anything. He 
was giving the recruiter quick information that the recruiter asked him to get the 
paperwork completed.

	e.  On 15 April 1996, the applicant’s platoon sergeant recommended the applicant’s 
retention. Likewise, on 17 Aril 1996, the applicant’s company, battalion, and brigade 
commanders recommended approval of the applicant’s retention. 

	f.  On 14 May 1996, the separation authority (Commanding General, U.S. Army 
Armor Center, Fort Knox) approved the applicant’s retention in the Army and waived the 
discharge action based on fraudulent entry. The following statement was entered in item 
27, of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record): "Discharge action based on 
fraudulent entry is waived."

	g.  Upon arrival at Aberdeen Proving Ground, in early July 1996, the applicant 
complained of back pain. He was seen at Kirk Army Health Clinic and underwent an 
Entrance Physical Standards Board. His DA Form 4707 (Entrance Physical Standards 
Board (EPSBD) Proceedings), dated 9 July 1996, notes the following:

		(1)  History of present illness: Applicant reports having lower back pain prior to 
joining the Army. The pain has worsened with increased activity. There is no radiation 
into his legs, and he denies any numbness, paresthesia, bowel, or bladder problems. 
He has been seen in sick-call multiple times for this problem and has been treated with 
NSAID and muscle relaxants without improvement. He has been unable to pass a PT 
(physical Training) test. He has been seen by Physical Therapy and Physical Medicine 
who recommended medical discharge.

		(2)  Physical Examination: Well developed male in no apparent pain at this time . 
Back is without deformity. Straight leg raises negative bilaterally. Deep patellar reflexes 
are +2 bilaterally. Motor strength is 5 / 5 in lower extremities. There is no sign of sensory 
loss in lower extremities. 

		(3)  Diagnosis and recommendation: Back pain. He is medically cleared for 
administrative separation in accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 40-501 (Standards 
of Medical Fitness), Chapter 2, para 2-361 as he is unfit for duty.

	h.  On 11 July 1996, the medical approving authority approved the findings of the 
physician and forwarded the DA Form 4707 to the commander. 

	i.  On 18 July 1996, the applicant indicated he was informed of the medical findings. 
Additionally, he understood that legal advice of an attorney employed by the Army ill 
available to him or that he may consult civilian counsel at his own expense. He also 
understood that he may request to be discharged from the US Army without delay or to 
request retention on active duty. If retained, he may be involuntarily reclassified into 
another military occupational specialty based upon his medical condition. He concurred 
with these proceedings and requested to be discharged from the US Army without 
delay. 

	j.  The company commander recommended approval of the applicant’s discharge. 
The separation authority approved the EPSBD’s recommendation on 24 July 1996 and 
directed the applicant's entry level separation with uncharacterized service.

	k.  The applicant was discharged from active duty on 12 August 1996. His 
DD Form 214 shows he was discharged from active duty under the provisions of AR 
635-200, paragraph 5-11, by reason of failure to meet procurement medical fitness 
standards.  He completed 6 months and 8 days of active service. He was not awarded 
an MOS. 

4.  On 12 November 2021, the Board considered his request to change the character of 
service. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence 
found within the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The 
applicant’s contentions, the military record, and regulatory guidance were carefully 
considered. The governing regulation provides that a separation will be described as an 
entry-level separation, with service uncharacterized, if the separation action is initiated 
while a Soldier is in entry-level status. As such, his DD Form 214 properly shows his 
service as uncharacterized. An uncharacterized discharge is not meant to be a negative 
reflection of a Soldier’s military service.  It merely means the Soldier has not been in the 
Army long enough for his or her character of service to be rated as honorable or 
otherwise.  As a result, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. 



5.  MEDICAL REVIEW:

    a.  The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor was asked to review 
this case. Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s ABCMR application and 
accompanying documentation, the military electronic medical record (AHLTA), the VA 
electronic medical record (JLV), the electronic Physical Evaluation Board (ePEB), the 
Medical Electronic Data Care History and Readiness Tracking (MEDCHART) 
application, and the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System 
(iPERMS).  The ARBA Medical Advisor made the following findings and 
recommendations:  
    b.  The applicant is again applying to the ABCMR requesting an upgrade of his 
uncharacterized discharge.  
    c.  The Record of Proceedings outlines the applicant’s military service and the 
circumstances of the case.  His DD 214 shows he entered the regular Army on 5 
February 1996 and received an uncharacterized discharged on 12 August 1996 under 
the separation authority provided by paragraph 5-11 of AR 635-200, Personnel 
Separations – Enlisted Personnel (26 June 1996): Separation of personnel who did not 
meet procurement medical fitness standards.  
    d.  Paragraph 5-11a of AR 635-200:
 a. 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 AD [active duty] or ADT [active duty for 
training] for initial entry training, will be separated.  Medical proceedings, 
regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was 
identified by appropriate military medical authority within 6 months of the soldier’s 
initial entrance on AD for RA [regular Army], or during ADT for initial entry 
training for ARNGUS [Army National Guard of the United States] and USAR 
[United States Army Reserve], which—
(1) Would have permanently or temporarily disqualified him or her for entry 
into the military service or entry on AD or ADT for initial entry training had it 
been detected at that time.
(2) Does not disqualify him or her for retention in the military service under 
the provisions of AR 40–501, chapter 3.
    e.  The applicant was referred to an Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) for 
IAW paragraph 5-11 of AR 635-200 for chronic low back pain that had failed to respond 
to conservative treatment.   
    f.  EPSBDs are convened IAW paragraph 7-12 of AR 40-400, Patient Administration.  
This process is for enlisted Soldiers who within their first 6 months of active service are 
found to have a preexisting condition or develop a condition which does not meet the 
enlistment standard in chapter 2 of AR 40-501, Standards of Medical Fitness (1 
December 1983), but does meet the chapter 3 retention standard of the same 
regulation.  The fourth criterion for this process is that the preexisting condition was not 
permanently aggravated by their military service.  
    g.  From the Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) Proceedings (DA Form 
4707) dated 29 July 1997:
“Military History : E1 [Applicant] is a 20-year-old black male AIT [advanced 
individual training] student who received his basic training at Ft. Knox, KY.  His 
proposed MOS is 44B, Metal Worker.
Chief Complaint: Back pain.
History of Present Illness:  [Applicant] reports having lower back pain prior to 
joining the Army.  The pain has worsened with increased activity.  There is no 
radiation into his legs and he denies any numbness, paresthesia, bowel, or 
bladder problems.   [Applicant] has been seen in sick call multiple times for this 
problem and has been treated with NSAID and muscle relaxants without 
improvement. He has been unable to pass a PT test .   has been seen by 
Physical Therapy and Physical Medicine who recommended medical discharge.
Physical Examination: Well-developed black male in no apparent pain at this time 
Back is without deformity. Straight leg raises negative bilaterally. Deep patellar 
reflexes are +2 bilaterally.  Motor strength is 5 / 5 in lower extremities.  There is 
no sign of sensory loss in lower extremities.
Diagnosis: Back pain.
Recommendation: E1 Wilson is medically cleared for administrative separation 
IAW AR 40-501, Chapter 2, para 2-36l as he is unfit for duty.”
    h.  Paragraph 2-36 of AR 40-501 (30 August 1995) addresses “Skin and cellular 
tissues.”  The mast applicable paragraph for this case was probably paragraph 2-37b 
which states low back pain fails medical procurement standards for:
“Complaint of a disease or injury of the spine or sacroiliac joints with or without 
objective signs that has prevented the individual from successfully, following a 
physically active vocation in civilian life. Substantiation or documentation of the 
complaint without objective physical findings is required.”
    i.  The EPSBD determined the condition had developed during his first six months of 
service, failed the enlistment standards in chapter 2 AR 40-501, had not been 
permanently aggravated by his military service, and was not compatible with continued 
service.  The applicant agreed with these findings on 18 July 1996, marking and 
initialing the option “I concur with these proceedings and request to be discharged from 
the U.S. Army without delay.” 
    j.  An uncharacterized discharge is given to individuals who separate prior to 
completing 180 days of military service, or when the discharge action was initiated prior 
to 180 days of service.  This type of discharge does not attempt to characterize service 
as good or bad.  Through no fault of his own, he simply had a medical condition which 
was, unfortunately, not within enlistment standards.  
    k.  It is the opinion of the Agency Medical Advisor that neither an upgrade of his 
discharge nor referral of his case to the DES is warranted.   

BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found 
within the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board 
carefully considered the applicant's record of service, documents submitted in support 
of the petition and executed a comprehensive and standard review based on law, policy 
and regulation. The governing regulation provides that a separation will be described as 
an entry-level separation, with service uncharacterized, if the separation action is 
initiated while a Soldier is in entry-level status. Upon review of the applicant’s petition, 
available military records and medical review the Board concurred with the advising 
official finding that a referral of his case to the Disability Evaluation System (DES) and 
upgrade of his discharge is without merit. The Board determined DES compensates an 
individual only for service incurred condition(s) which have been determined to 
disqualify him or her from further military service.  The DES has neither the role nor the 
authority to compensate service members for anticipated future severity or potential 
complications of conditions which were incurred or permanently aggravated during their 
military service; or which did not cause or contribute to the termination of their military 
career.

2.  Additionally, the Board noted the applicant completed 6 months and 8 days of active-
duty service. An uncharacterized discharge is not meant to be a negative reflection of a 
Soldier’s military service.  It merely means the Soldier has not been in the Army long 
enough for his or her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise.  As a 
result, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request for upgrade of his 
uncharacterized character of service or referral of his case to the DES. Therefore, the 
Board denied relief.
3.  The applicant’s request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered.  
In this case, the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable 
decision.  As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the 
interest of equity and justice in this case.


BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:	:	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

:X	:X	:X	DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board found the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a 
probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this 
case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket 
Number AR20210011657, on 12 November 2021.

	 
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the 
Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.


REFERENCES:

1.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for 
the separation of enlisted personnel. The version in effect at the time provided that:

	a.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to 
benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the 
quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct 
and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any 
other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

	b.  A separation would be described as entry level with uncharacterized service if the 
Soldier had less than 180 days of continuous active-duty service at the time separation 
action was initiated.

	c.  Paragraph 3-9, in effect at the time of the applicant's separation, provided that a 
separation would be described as entry level with uncharacterized service if processing 
was initiated while a Soldier was in an entry-level status, except when:

		(1)  a discharge under other than honorable conditions were authorized, due to 
the reason for separation and was warranted by the circumstances of the case; or

		(2)  the Secretary of the Army, on a case-by-case basis, determined a 
characterization of service as honorable was clearly warranted by the presence of 
unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of duty.  This 
characterization was authorized when the Soldier was separated by reason of selected 
changes in service obligation, for convenience of the government, and under Secretarial 
plenary authority.

	d.  Paragraph 5-11 provided 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 entrance on active duty, active 
duty for training, or initial entry training would be separated.  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 military service had it been detected at that time, and the medical 
condition did not disqualify the Soldier from retention in the service under the provisions 
of Army Regulation 40-501(Standards of Medical Fitness).

	e.  The character of service for Soldiers separated under this provision would 
normally be honorable but would be uncharacterized if the Soldier was in an entry-level 
status.  An uncharacterized discharge is neither favorable nor unfavorable; in the case 
of Soldiers issued this characterization of service, an insufficient amount of time would 
have passed to evaluate the Soldier's conduct and performance.2.  Army Regulation 

2.  Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for 
correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR.  
The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of 
administrative regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct.  

	a.  The ABCMR is not an investigative body and decides cases based on the 
evidence that is presented in the military records provided and the independent 
evidence submitted with the application.  The applicant has the burden of proving an 
error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.  

	b.  The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional evidence 
or opinions.  Additionally, it states in paragraph 2-11 that applicants do not have a right 
to a hearing before the ABCMR.  The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal 
hearing whenever justice requires.

3.  Section 1556 of Title 10, United States Code, requires the Secretary of the Army to 
ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by the Army Review Boards Agency 
(ARBA) be provided with a copy of any correspondence and communications (including 
summaries of verbal communications) to or from the Agency with anyone outside the 
Agency that directly pertains to or has material effect on the applicant's case, except as 
authorized by statute. ARBA medical advisory opinions and reviews are authored by 
ARBA civilian and military medical and behavioral health professionals and are 
therefore internal agency work product. Accordingly, ARBA does not routinely provide 
copies of ARBA Medical Office recommendations, opinions (including advisory 
opinions), and reviews to Army Board for Correction of Military Records applicants 
(and/or their counsel) prior to adjudication.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20220011451


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1