IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 September 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140010855 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 and a change to the narrative reason for separation to include the reentry eligibility (RE) code. 2. The applicant states, in effect, she was unfairly treated so her drill sergeant could keep his rank. She believes she would have been an outstanding Soldier. She desires to reenlist in the military so she can retire. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 16 June 2014 b. Discharge received: Uncharacterized c. Date of Discharge: 20 April 2005 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards AR 635-200, Chapter 5, paragraph 5-11, JFW, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: B Co, 2-10th Infantry, Fort Leonard Wood, MO f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 28 December 2004, 4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 3 months, 23 days h. Total Service: 4 months, 14 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: RA (030529-030619)/UNC k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3 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: NIF u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 May 2003, for a period of 4 years. She was 18 years old at the time and a high school graduate. She was discharged on 19 June 2003, with an uncharacterized discharge. The applicant enlisted again in the Regular Army on 28 December 2004, for a period of 4 years. She was 19 years old at the time and a high school graduate. Her record does not show any acts of valor or significant achievements. She was in initial entry training at Fort Leonard Wood, MO when her discharge was initiated. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. The record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s signature. 2. The DD Form 214 indicates on 20 April 2005, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 5, paragraph 5-11, AR 635-200, for failed medical/physical procurement standards, with an SPD code of JFW, an RE code of 3, and a characterization of service of uncharacterized. 3. On 19 April 2005, Orders 109-0357, DA, HQS, US Army Maneuver Support Center and Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Leonard Wood, MO discharged the applicant from the Regular Army, effective 20 April 2005. 4. The applicant’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences, time lost or any action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Discharge Orders 109-0357, dated 19 April 2005. 2. DD Form 214, dated 20 April 2005. 3. Enlistment/Reenlistment Document, dated 28 December 2004. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293 (two pages), and a DD Form 214. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant stated in her application she is enrolled in Everest University, and at the top of her class. REGULATORY AUTHORITY: 1. 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. 2. The characterization of service for Soldiers separated under this provision of the regulation will normally be honorable. However for Soldiers in entry-level status, it will be uncharacterized. 3. Army Regulation 635-200 states 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. 4. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JFW" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5, paragraph 5-11, for failed medical/physical procurement standards. 5. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JFW" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of her discharge and a change to the narrative reason for separation to include the RE code was carefully considered. However, after a careful review of all the applicant’s available records for the period of enlistment under review, the issues and documents submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge or a change to the narrative reason for separation to include the RE code. 2. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to her discharge from the Army; however, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s signature. This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge. 3. The DD Form 214 shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 5, paragraph 5-11, AR 635-200, for failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards with service uncharacterized. In connection with such a discharge, the proceedings of an Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSB) would have revealed the applicant had a medical condition which was disqualifying for enlistment and that it existed prior to entry on active duty. Subsequently, competent medical authority would have had to approve the findings of the EPSB. The applicant would have had to agree with the findings and the proposed action for administrative separation from the Army. 4. 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. 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 applicant’s service record contains no such unusual circumstances and her service did not warrant an honorable discharge. It appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 5. The applicant requested a change to the reason for the discharge to include the RE code. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JFW" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5, paragraph 5-11, for failed medical/physical procurement standards. 6. The applicant contends she was unfairly treated so her drill sergeant could keep his rank. However, a determination as to the merit of this contention cannot be made because the facts and circumstances leading to the discharge are unknown. The applicant bears the burden of presenting substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention she was treated unfairly. 7. The applicant further contends she would have been an outstanding Soldier. The rationale the applicant provided as the basis for what she believes was an unfair discharge is not supportable by the evidence contained in the record and can only be viewed as speculative in nature. 8. The applicant desires to reenlist in the military so she can retire. Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3. There is no basis to grant a change to the narrative reason or to the RE code. An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist. If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. 9. Furthermore, if the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be her responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board’s consideration because they are not available in the official record. 10. Therefore, based on the available evidence and the presumption of government regularity, it appears the reason for discharge and the characterization of service to include the RE code being both proper and equitable, thus the analyst recommends the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 22 September 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify: No Counsel: None 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: No Change Change RE Code to: No Change 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) AR20140010855 Page 2 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1