IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE: 26 October 2023

		DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230000359


APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration of his request to have his characterization of 
service changed from uncharacterized to either under honorable conditions (general) or 
honorable.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	Written request for reconsideration
*	Department of the Army (DA) Form 2442 (Certificate of Achievement)
*	Fort Leonard Wood Commanding General's Certificate
*	U.S. Army Engineer Center, Fort Leonard Wood, MO Certificate of Excellence
*	Memorandum of Commendation

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 AR20210013715 on 10 May 2022.

2. The applicant states he is respectfully requesting reconsideration for a change of 
status to at least a general discharge considering he did not qualify for an honorable 
discharge. 

     a.  He contends he was young and did not fully understand what was going on. He 
did not ask a lot of questions because of not having any medical or legal understanding 
or background in what was taking place, he followed suit because he was being 
instructed to follow directions. No one explained to him the full process, what his options 
were, or how his discharge would affect his life. The Physical Evaluation Board Liaison 
Officer (PEBLO) never fully advised him of his options on what would be in his best 
interest. He was not fully advised nor was he given an opportunity to have a hearing in 
front of the Physical Review Board. 

     b.  There is a lot of misinformation that was documented in reference to his 
discharge process. He did not want to be discharged from the Army. That is why he 
worked diligently in his efforts to be the best Soldier he could be in support of his 
country during Basic Combat Training (BCT) and why he was selected to further his 
training at Advanced individual Training (AIT).

     c.  Although he signed a memorandum requesting to be separated and waiving of a 
Physical Review Board hearing on 8 February 1991, that isn't accurate reporting. As he 
recalls, he was told to sign and there was no mention of him being afforded an 
opportunity to have a hearing.

     d.  Although his record indicates he made a request to be discharged and waived his 
rights to a hearing in front of the board, he did not make such a request. He was 
directed by his superiors as to this decision.

     e.  It is unfair to say that his disability was neither incident to nor aggravated by his 
military service because it is an untrue statement. He was cleared to enter the Army by 
appointed medical professionals who were employed by the Army. Had they found and 
discrepancies in his health conditions, he would have not been accepted and allowed to 
advance any further in the recruitment and enlistment process. He only became unfit 
after almost 3 months of military service due to an injury aggravated while in training.

     f.  He enlisted in the Army to fight and defend his country in case of war. He trained 
to the best of his ability, to excel in all areas of training, and to become the best Soldier 
that the Army could produce. An unfortunate incident occurred which hindered him from 
achieving his long-term goal of military retirement. It is unfortunate that the information 
documented at the time of his discharge by military personnel was inaccurate. Please 
do not base your decision solely on that documentation.

3.  On 30 October 1990, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 
4 years at the age of 27. Upon completion of BCT at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, he was 
reassigned to Fort Lee, VA, for completion of AIT. He reported to Fort Lee on 5 January 
1991.

4.  	On 8 February 1991, the applicant signed a memorandum wherein he voluntarily 
requested to be discharged from military service for physical disability based upon the 
findings and recommendation of a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), which considered 
him unqualified for retention in the military service due to physical disability that was 
found to have existed prior to his entry into active service (EPTS). The MEB found the 
disability neither incident to nor aggravated by his military service. The applicant also 
acknowledged he had been fully informed and understood that he was entitled to the 
same consideration and process as any other member of the U.S. Army separated for 
physical disability. He understood that included consideration of his case by a Physical 
Evaluation Board (PEB); however, he elected not to exercise that right. He also 
understood that the Veterans Administration (VA) would determine his eligibility for VA 
benefits. If his request was approved, he understood he would be separated by reason 
of EPTS, physical disability and would receive a discharge in keeping with the character 
of his service, as decided by the officer designated to determine his separation.

5.	On 8 February 1991, a PEBLO notified the applicant's AIT commander that he had a 
physical disability that was found to have EPTS neither incident to, nor aggravated by 
military service, and had been determined by competent medical authority to be an 
unfitting condition for continued active service pursuant to retention standards set forth 
in Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards for Medical Fitness), chapter 3 (Medical Fitness 
Standards for Retention and Including Retirement). The PEBLO stated the applicant 
had been fully counseled and offered an expeditious discharge pursuant to the 
provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or 
Separation), Chapter 5 (Separation for Non-Service Aggravated, EPTS Conditions upon 
Soldier's Waiver of PEB Evaluation), and had requested separation from the military 
service by reason of an EPTS physical disability.

6.  On 12 February 1991, the separation authority approved the applicants expeditious 
discharge and directed his separation with an uncharacterized characterization of 
service. 

7.  The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate or Release or Discharge from Active Duty) 
shows he was discharged on 19 February 1991, under the provisions of Army 
Regulation 635-40, Chapter 5, by reason of "Physical Disability Prior to Entry on Active 
Duty – Medical Board." His service was "Uncharacterized," with Separation Code "KFN" 
and Reentry Code "3." He was credited with completion of 3 months and 20 days of net 
active service. He did not complete his full term of service.

8.  In support of his petition, the applicant provides the following documents he received 
during his attendance at BCT:

     a.  A Fort Leonard Wood Commanding General's Certificate for distinguishing 
himself as the most outstanding Soldier of his company through his demonstration of 
excellence in leadership ability, physical fitness, and overall knowledge of military 
subjects.

     b.  A Certificate of Achievement awarded to him on 3 January 1991 for continuously 
achieving the highest standards of performance and distinguishing himself by being 
selected as the recipient of the Command General's Award.

     c.  A Certificate of Excellence presented to him for his accomplishments on the Army 
Physical Fitness Test.

     d.  A Memorandum of Commendation he received from his commander for a job well 
done while assigned as Platoon Guide during Cycle 1-91.
9.  In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition, 
arguments and assertions, and service record in accordance with the published equity, 
injustice, or clemency guidance.

10.  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 applying to the ABCMR requesting the Board reconsider their 
previous denial of his request for an upgrade of service currently characterized as 
uncharacterized service.  He states:
“…I have no new evidence documented, other than my statement to include and 
unfair decision by the Army Physical Evaluation Board Liaison (PEBLO}.…”
    c.  The Record of Proceedings details the applicant’s military service and the 
circumstances of the case.  His signed DD 214 shows he entered the regular Army on 
30 October 1990 and received an uncharacterized discharge on 19 February 1991 
under the provisions in Chapter 5 of AR 635-40, Physical Evaluation for Retention, 
Retirement, or Separation (17 October 1990): Expeditious Discharge.  The military 
separation code KFN denotes “Disability, Existed Prior to Service, Med Board.”
    d.  This request was previously denied in full on 10 May 2022 (AR20210013715).  
Rather than repeat their findings here, the board is referred to the record of proceedings 
for that case.  This review will concentrate on the new evidence submitted by the 
applicant.
    e.  No medical documentation was submitted with the application.  Because of the 
period of service under consideration, there are no clinical encounters in AHLTA.  The 
only encounter in JLV shows the applicant underwent lumbar radiographs on 18 April 
1991 and there is no report of findings.  The applicant has no record in iPERMS.
    f.  The pre-service medical condition for which the applicant was discharged remains 
unknown:  The applicant does not identify it in his self-authored letter, and it is not 
identified in his separation documents. 
    g.  There is no evidence the applicant had any service incurred medical condition 
which would have failed the medical retention standards of chapter 3, AR 40-501 prior 
to her discharge.  Thus, there was no cause for referral to the Disability Evaluation 
System.  
    h.  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.   
    i.  It is the opinion of the Agency Medical Advisor that neither a referral of his case to 
the DES nor a discharge upgrade is warranted.


BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  The Board carefully considered the applicant's request, supporting documents, 
evidence in the records, a medical review, and published Department of Defense 
guidance for liberal consideration of requests for changes to discharges.

2.  The Board found no evidence of errors in the applicant’s discharge processing, 
noting the record clearly shows he voluntarily requested an expeditious discharge after 
it was found he had a disqualifying condition that had existed prior to service. Because 
he was an entry-level Soldier at the time of his discharge, his service was 
uncharacterized in accordance with the governing regulation. Based on a 
preponderance of the evidence, the Board determined the applicant’s uncharacterized 
service is not in error or unjust.


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 evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or 
injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are 
insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number 
AR20210013715 on 10 May 2022.
	 
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.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1556, provides the Secretary of the Army shall ensure 
that an applicant seeking corrective action by ARBA is provided a copy of all 
correspondence and communications, including summaries of verbal communications, 
with any agencies or persons external to agency or board, or a member of the staff of 
the agency or Board, that directly pertains to or has material effect on the applicant's 
case, except as authorized by statute.

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 regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the 
presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an 
error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. It is not an investigative body. 

3.  Army Regulation 635-40, in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for 
the evaluation and final disposition of Soldiers determined to be unfit due to physical 
disability.  

     	a.  Paragraph 4-9 (Medical Examination) of the regulation required Medical 
Treatment Facility commanders with primary medical care responsibility to examine 
Soldiers referred for evaluation. 

	b.  Paragraph 4-10 (The MEBD) provided the MEBD documented a Soldier's 
medical status and limitations and resolved whether the Soldier met or failed the 
medical retention standards outlined in Army Regulation 40-501. MEBDs referred 
Soldiers failing medical retention standards to a PEB for a fitness determination. 

	c.  Chapter 5 provided that Soldiers could waive their right to PEB evaluation and 
elect separation. To qualify for this separation, the Soldier had been on active duty for 
more than 30 days; in addition, the Soldier has to meet the following criteria:

*	Soldier was eligible for referral into the disability system
*	Soldier did not meet medical retention standards, as determined by an MEBD
*	The disqualifying defect or condition existed prior to entry on the Soldier's current 
period of active duty and had not been aggravated by such duty
*	Further hospitalization or institutional care was not required
*	After being advised of the right to a full and fair hearing, the Soldier still desired 
to waive PEB action
*	Soldier was advised that a PEB evaluation was needed for receipt of Army 
disability benefits, but waiver of the PEB did not prevent the Soldier from 
applying for VA benefits

     d.  When the Soldier was in an entry-level status, Army policy required the issuance 
of an uncharacterized character of service.

4.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the 
separation of enlisted personnel.  

	a.  Paragraph 3-7a (Honorable Discharge). An honorable discharge was a 
separation with honor. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality 
of the member's service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and 
performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other 
characterization would be clearly inappropriate. 

	b.  Paragraph 3-7b (General Discharge) stated a general discharge was a 
separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The regulation authorized 
separation authorities to issue a general discharge to Soldiers whose military record 
was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

	c.  Paragraph 3-9 (Uncharacterized Separations). Separation authorities were to 
describe a separation as entry-level, with service uncharacterized, if commanders 
initiated separation processing while a Soldier was in entry-level status. The regulation 
additionally specified the Secretary of the Army, or designee, could grant a Soldier an 
honorable character of service, on a case-by-case basis, when clearly warranted by 
unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of military duties. 

		(1)  Effective 28 January 1982, the Department of Defense (DOD) established 
"entry-level status" in DOD Directive 1332.14 (Enlisted Administrative Separations). 

		(2)  For active duty service members, entry-level status began on the member's 
enlistment and continued until he/she had served 180 days of continuous active duty.

5.  The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to 
Service Discharge Review Boards and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval 
Records (BCM/NR) on 25 July 2018, regarding equity, injustice, or clemency 
determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal 
sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the court-martial forum.  
However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-
martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which 
may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds.  

	a.  This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and 
principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority.  In 
determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency 
grounds, Boards shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn 
testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health 
conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was 
committed, and uniformity of punishment.  

	b.  Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of 
service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not 
result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses 
or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for 
the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization.
//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20230000359


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1