Application Receipt Date: 06/09/05 Prior Review Prior Review Date: NONE I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: Applicant would like an upgrade to Honorable to be eligible to use the Montgomery GI Bill 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: 99/07/08 Discharge Received: Date: 99/07/30 Chapter: 13 AR: 635-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance RE: SPD: LHJ Unit/Location: NCO Academy, Training Support Battalion, Fort Jackson, SC 29027 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: 780519 Current ENL Date: Reenl/981014 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 0 Yrs, 9 Mos, 16 Days ????? Total Service: 2 Yrs, 11Mos, 23Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA-960808-981013-HD Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 92Y10 (Unit Supply Specialist) GT: 94 EDU: HS 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 8 July 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 (you failed three Army Physical Fitness Test's, on 23 April, 1999, and two make-up record APFTs on 4 June 1999 and 17 June 1999), with a general, under honorable conditions 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. On16 July 1999, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a general, under honorable conditions discharge and transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). On 30 July 1999, the applicant was discharged. 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 several mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation to current standards. The analyst noted that the applicant was discharged for the sole reason of a failure to meet the minimum standards of the Army Physical Fitness Test. The analyst also noted the lack of any other derogatory information in the record. Based on these factors, the analyst determined that the characterization of service and the narrative reason for separation is inequitable. Additionally, regulations currently in effect list the reason for the applicant’s release from active duty as “Physical Standards.” Accordingly, the analyst recommends to the Board that the narrative reason for separation on the DD Form 214 be changed to “Physical Standards.” VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 26 September 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 5 No change 0 - 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 characterization of service was too harsh based on the sole reason for failure to meet the minimum standards on the Army Physical Fitness Test. The Board considered the applicants length and quality of service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge when making the recommendation. Further, the Board found that the narrative reason for separation on the applicant’s DD Form 214 was incorrect. 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.” Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Ron Williams, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: HD Change Reason to: Physical Standards Other: NA RE Code: NA Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: ????? XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 20 October 2007 Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060012657 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 5 pages