Application Receipt Date: 060721 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See applicant's attached DD Form 293. 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: 990524 Discharge Received: Date: 990630 Chapter: 13 AR: 635-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance RE: SPD: LHJ Unit/Location: Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 3d Battalion, 81st Armor Regiment, Fort Knox, KY 40121 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: 740818 Current ENL Date: 990630 Current ENL Term: 03 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 04Mos, 06Days ????? Total Service: 02 Yrs, 04Mos, 06Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 55B10 (Ammunition Specialist) GT: 94 EDU: BA Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ASR, V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 24 May 1999, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter l3, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance (failed a record APFT on 21 October 1998, a diagnostic APFT on 18 November 1998 and 16 December 1998, a second APFT on 29 January 1999, a diagnostic APFT on 3 March 1999 and 30 March 1999, and a third APFT on 30 April 1999), with an honorable discharge. He was advised of his rights. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, 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 separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge. The applicant was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training). A local bar to reenlistment was approved on the applicant 11 February 1999. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier. Army policy states that a general discharge, under honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, and the issue he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. Evidence of record shows that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance with an honorable characterization of service. However, the analyst found that the narrative reason for discharge was inequitable and noted that the applicant was discharged for the sole reason of failure to meet the minimum standards of the Army Physical Fitness Test. Regulations currently in effect list the reason for the applicant’s discharge as “Physical Standards.” Accordingly, it is recommended that the Board vote to change the narrative reason on the DD Form 214 to current standards “Physical Standards” with a corresponding separation code (SPD) of "LFT." VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 15 August 2007 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA 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 NA No change NA - Character Change 5 No change 0 - 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 narrative reason for separation was inequitable. Regulations currently in effect list the reason for the applicant’s discharge as physical standards. Accordingly, the Board voted to change the narrative reason on the DD Form 214 to current standards “Physical Standards”, with a corresponding separation (SPD) code of "LFT." Case report reviewed and verified by: Eric S. Moore, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: "Physical Standards" under Chapter 13 AR 635-200, with a corresponding separation (SPD) code of "LFT." Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 22 August 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060010215 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages