IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 June 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140010771 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. Presiding Officer I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case. THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND STATEMENT: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge from uncharacterized to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, his discharge was due to a disability. His disability rating has been determined to be greater than 50 percent. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 16 June 2014 b. Discharge received: Uncharacterized c. Date of Discharge: 16 October 2009 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Disability, Severance Pay (Non-Combat Related), AR 635-40, Chapter 4, JFO, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: FTU, 43rd AG, Fort Leonard Wood, MO f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 19 May 2009, NIF g. Current Enlistment Service: 4 months, 28 days h. Total Service: 7 months, 8 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: ARNG-090320-090518/NA k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-1 l. Military Occupational Specialty: None m. GT Score: NIF n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: None r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: None t. Counseling Statements: None u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard on 20 March 2009, for a period of 8 years. He was 23 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He was attending training at Fort Leonard Wood, MO when his discharge was initiated. The record does not contain any evidence of acts of valor or meritorious achievements. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence of record shows that on 21 August 2009, a Medical Evaluation Board diagnosed the applicant with chronic bilateral leg pain, pain distal to the knee secondary to medial tibial plateau stress fractures; a medical condition that made him unfit to perform his military duties and referred him to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). 2. On 2 October 2009, the PEB determined the applicant was physically unfit to perform his military duties due to a condition (bilateral stress fractures) that occurred in the line of duty and was not due to misconduct. The PEB recommended separation with severance pay. 3. On 6 October 2009, having been informed of the findings and recommendations of the PEB, the applicant concurred and waived a formal hearing of his case. 4. On 14 October 2009, the PEB was approved by the Secretary of the Army. 5. On 15 October 2009, DA, HQ, US Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence and Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Leonard Wood, MO, Orders 288-1309, released the applicant from Active duty for training, discharged him from the Reserve of the Army, and returned him to his Army National Guard unit effective 16 October 2009. 6. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 16 October 2009, with a characterization of service of uncharacterized under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 635-40, for disability, severance pay, non-combat related, with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JFO and an RE code of 3. 7. The applicant’s record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. The MEB proceedings dated 21 August 2009, indicating the applicant had chronic bilateral leg pain, pain distal to the knee secondary to medial tibial plateau stress fractures; a medical condition that made him unfit to perform his military duties and referred him to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). 2. The PEB proceedings dated, 2 October 2009 indicated the applicant had stress fractures in his left and right legs. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided his online application dated 9 June 2014, a copy of a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs dated 10 June 2014, which indicates the applicant is receiving 80 percent service connected disability, and a copy of his DD Form DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: None was provided with the application. REGULATORY AUTHORITY: 1. Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of a physical disability. Chapter 4 provides for the separation of enlisted Soldiers found to be unfit by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) due to a condition which occurred in the line of duty and not due to the Soldier’s misconduct. Paragraph 4-24b(4) provides that Soldiers not having sufficient time in service for retirement would be separated by reason of disability without severance pay because of a condition that existed prior to military service. 2. The characterization of service for Soldiers separated under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 635-40 will normally be honorable unless the Soldier is in entry-level status. The service of Soldiers in entry-level status will be uncharacterized. 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. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, the documents and the issue submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. 2. The evidence of record shows the applicant, while in entry-level status was released from active duty for training under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 635-40, by reason of disability, severance pay (non-combat related), with character of service described as uncharacterized. The proceedings of a Medical Evaluation Board diagnosed the applicant with a medical condition that made him unfit to perform his military duties and referred him to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). A PEB determined that the applicant was physically unfit to perform his military duties due to a condition which occurred in the line of duty and was not due to his own misconduct. The PEB recommended separation with severance pay. 3. The applicant contends his discharge was due to disability and that his disability rating has been determined to be greater than 50 percent. The independent document submitted by the applicant from the Department of Veterans Affairs reference him receiving 80 percent service connected disability was noted. However, the characterization of service for Soldiers separated under the provision of this regulation is normally honorable, unless the Soldier is in entry-level status. A Soldier is in entry-level status for the first 180 days of continuous active duty. Army Regulation 635-200 also provides, except in cases of serious misconduct, that a Soldier’s service will be uncharacterized when separated in entry-level status. For ARNG and USAR Soldiers ordered to IADT, entry-level status terminates 180 days after the beginning of training. The applicant had completed 4 months and 28 days of continued active service at the time he was released from active duty; thus, he was in entry level status at the time. 4. A general, under honorable conditions discharge is not authorized under ELS conditions and an 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 service record confirms that no such unusual circumstances were present and his service did not warrant an honorable discharge. 5. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 6. Therefore, the reason for discharge and characterization of service being both proper and equitable, the analyst recommends the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 3 June 2015 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? NA Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Board Vote: Character Change: 0 No Change: 5 Reason Change: 0 No Change: 5 (Board member names available upon request) Board Action Directed: Issue a new DD Form 214: No Change Characterization to: No Change Change Reason to: No Change Change Authority for Separation: NA Change RE Code to: NA Grade Restoration to: NA Other: NA Legend: AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record FG - Field Grade IADT – Initial Active Duty Training RE - Reentry AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NA - Not applicable SCM- Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial CG - Company Grade Article 15 HD - Honorable Discharge OAD - Ordered to Active Duty UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge CID - Criminal investigation Department MP – Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont) AR20140010771 Page 2 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1