Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 080924 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and supporting documentation submitted by the Applicant. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Tender Offer: NA See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Discharge Under Review Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 060731 Discharge Received: Date: 060920 Chapter: 13-2e AR: 635-200 Reason: Physical Standards RE: SPD: JFT Unit/Location: 61st Chem.Co., 23rd Chem. Bn., Ft. Lewis, WA Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 19 Current ENL Date: 050111 Current ENL Term: 04 Years 25 Weeks Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 08 Mos, 10 Days Applicant required a medical waiver to enlist. Total Service: 01 Yrs, 08 Mos, 10 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E2 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 74D Chemical Ops Spec GT: 102 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Sacketts Harbor, NY Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted by the Applicant. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 16 May 2006, the unit commander notified the Applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance, specifically, two consecutive failures of the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) (051025 & 060222), having no medical limitations that prohibited her from taking the APFT, with a general under honorable conditions discharge. The Applicant was advised of her rights, consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in her own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval with a general under honorable discharge. On 8 August 2006, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the Applicant be discharged with a general under honorable conditions discharge. The Applicant was not transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group. The record of evidence contains a memorandum from the unit commander, dated 17 November 2005, stating the Applicant was flagged under the provisions of AR 600-31 and was in a Weight Control Program. Additionally, the record of evidence contains a memorandum from the Okubo Medical Clinic, dated 17 November 2005, stating the Applicant's cause of being overweight was not due to a medical condition and recommending initiation or continuation in a weight reduction program. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13-2e of this regulation, states in pertinent part, that separation proceedings will be initiated for Soldiers without medical limitations who have two consecutive failures of the Army Physical Fitness Test. The reason for discharge will be shown as unsatisfactory performance. Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance for failure of the Army Physical Fitness Test will be characterized as honorable or general, under honorable conditions. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of the Applicant’s military records and the issue and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the Applicant's discharge. There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as the incidents of unsatisfactory performance. The analyst determined that the Applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the service was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. By the unsatisfactory performance, the Applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting a fully honorable characterization of service. Furthermore, the analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the Applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Therefore, the analyst determined the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 21 July 2009 Location: Washington, D.C. Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA VIII. 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 to deny relief. IX. Board Decision XI. Certification Signature Board Vote: Approval Authority: Character - Change 0 No change 5 Reason - Change 0 No change 5 (Board member names available upon request) EDGAR J. YANGER Colonel, U.S. Army X. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: No Change Other: No Change RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: No Change ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20080015084 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages