Application Receipt Date: 060222 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293, with attachments. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Yes No Tender Offer: ????? See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Original Character of Discharge Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 030424 Discharge Received: Date: 030502 Chapter: 5-11 AR: 35-200 Reason: Failure to Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standards RE: SPD: JFW Unit/Location: Company B, 120th Adjutant General Battalion, RCPT Training Command, Fort Jackson, South Carolina 29207 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 781213 Current ENL Date: 030306 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 0 Yrs, 1 Mos, 27 Days ????? Total Service: 0 Yrs, 1 Mos, 27 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: None GT: 122 EDU: 16 years Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: None V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: None VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 22 April 2003, the applicant was evaluated for body fat standards by command authority, and exceeded the body fat standards, under provisions of AR 40-501. On 24 April 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 5, Paragraph 5-11, AR 635-200, failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards, with service uncharacterized. He was advised of his rights. The applicant declined the opportunity to consult with legal counsel and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The command authority recommended that the applicant be separated under the provisions of Chapter 5, Paragraph 5-11, AR 635-200, for failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards. On 26 April 2003, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with service uncharacterized. b. Legal Basis for Separation: 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. The characterization of service for soldiers separated under this provision of regulation will normally be honorable, but will be uncharacterized if the soldier is in an entry-level status. Army Regulation 635-200, provides 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. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s available records for the period of enlistment under review, and the issue he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 5, Paragraph 5-11, AR 635-200, for failure to meet medical or physical procurement standards with service uncharacterized. The applicant was evaluated by competant medical authority, for body fat standards and found to have exceeded the body weight standards as provided under guidelines of AR 40-501. The applicant agreed with medical findings that he had exceeded body fat standards and signed the proposed action for administrative separation from the Army. A Soldier is in entry-level status (ELS) 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, for Soldiers in entry-level status, a fully 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 analyst determined that no such unusual circumstances were present in the applicant’s record and his service did not warrant an honorable discharge. The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and that the rights of the applicant were fully protected through the separation process. The analyst, determined that the reason for the discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 11 October 2006 Location: Washington, D.C. Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: N/A Witnesses/Observers: N/A Exhibits Submitted: N/A VIII. Board Decision The discharge was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The characterization of service was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The narrative reasons were: Equitable Inequitable DRB voting record: Change No change (Character) Change No change (Reason) (Board member names available upon request) IX. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable, and voted not to change it. Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. John Zangas, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: ????? Other: ????? RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: None XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: ESMERALDA G. PROCTOR DATE: 13 October 2006 Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060002629 Applicant Name: ______________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 7 pages