Application Receipt Date: 060329 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: 050322 Discharge Received: Date: 050325 Chapter: 5-11 AR: 635-200 Reason: Failure to Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standards RE: SPD: JFW Unit/Location: Company A, 232nd Medical Battalion, Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234 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: 841122 Current ENL Date: 040928 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 0 Yrs, 5 Mos, 28 Days ????? Total Service: 0 Yrs, 5 Mos, 28 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E2 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: None GT: 123 EDU: HS Grad 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: Evidence of record shows that on 17 February 2005, after careful consideration of medical records, laboratory findings and medical examinations, the Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) found that the applicant was medically unfit for enlistment in accordance with current medical fitness standards, and in the opinion of the evaluating physicians, the codndition(s) existed prior to service. On 24 February 2005, the medical approving authority approved the findings of the Board. On 10 March 2005, the applicant was informed of the medical findings. Additionally, he understood that legal advice of an attorney, employed by the Army, was available to him, or that he may consult with civilian counsel at his own expense. On 22 March 2005, the applicant concurred with these proceedings and requested to be discharged from the US Army without delay. The unit commander recommended the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Chapter 5-11, AR 635-200, by reason of failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards, with an uncharacterized discharge. On 22 March 2005, the separation authority approved separation with an uncharacterized discharge. On 25 March 2005, the applicant was discharged. 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 military records, and the issue he submitted, to include his supporting documents, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The proceedings of the Enlistment Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) revealed that the applicant had a medical condition that was disqualifying for enlistment and that it existed prior to entry on active duty. Subsequently, these findings were approved by competent medical authority. The applicant agreed with these findings and the proposed action for administrative separation from the Army. 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. 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. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service remains both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 1 November 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: na Other: na 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: 3 November 2006 Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060004732 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 6 pages