BOARD DATE: 17 December 2014

CASE NUMBER: AR20140002183

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.


1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his uncharacterized discharge to general, under honorably or fully honorable.

2. The applicant states, in effect, the characterization of his discharge is incorrect; it should not have been uncharacterized based on AR 635-200. In addition, the applicant contends he had no knowledge or record of any medical condition with his knee. The applicant contends he was not afforded the opportunity to appear before a review board.


a. Application Receipt Date: 28 January 2014
b. Discharge Received: Uncharacterized
c. Date of Discharge: 25 May 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Failed Medical/Physical/Procurement
Standards, AR 635-200, Chapter 5-11, JFW,
e. Unit of assignment: A Company, 795th Military Police Battalion,
Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 14 February 2012/5 years
g. Current Enlistment Service: 3 months, 12 days
h. Total Service: 3 months, 12 days
i. Time Lost: None
j. Previous Discharges: DEP, 120118-120213, N/A
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty: None
m. GT Score: NIF
n. Education: Bachelors Degree
o. Overseas Service: None
p. Combat Service: None
q. Decorations/Awards: None
r. Administrative Separation Board: N/A
s. Performance Ratings: N/A
t. Counseling Statements: No
u. Prior Board Review: No

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 February 2012, for a period of 5 years. He was 29 years old at the time of entry and a college graduate. He completed 3 months and 12 days of active duty service. At the time his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

1. The applicants 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 applicants signature. He was discharged as a SPC/E-4.

2. The DD Form 214 indicates that on 25 May 2012, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 5-11, for failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards, with an SPD code of JFW, an RE code of 3, and a characterization of service of uncharacterized.

3. On 24 May 2012, Orders 145-1310, DA, HQS, US Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence, Fort Leonard Wood, MO 65473, discharged the applicant from the Regular Army, effective 25 May 2012.

4. The applicants service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.


Discharge Orders Number 145-1310, dated 24 May 2012, Department of the Army, Headquarters, United States Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, discharged the applicant from the Regular Army effective 25 May 2012.


1. The applicant provided a self-authored statement outlining the chain of events that led up to his discharge.

2. Department of the Veterans Affairs Rating Decision, dated 30 October 2012, 4 pages.

3. Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated between 16 February 2012 and
14 March 2012, 13 pages.


None was provided with the application.


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 Soldiers 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.


1. The applicants request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered. However, after a careful review of all the applicants available records for the period of enlistment under review and the documents submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge.

2. The applicants record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his 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 applicants 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 AR 635-200, Chapter 5-11, 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 Soldiers service will be uncharacterized when his separation is initiated while the Soldier is in entry level status. 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 applicants service record contains no such unusual circumstances and his service did not warrant an honorable discharge. It appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and that the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

5. The applicant’s contentions were carefully considered. However, a determination as to the merit of these contentions cannot be made because the facts and circumstances leading to the discharge are unknown. The applicant must meet the burden of proof by providing the appropriate documents such as the discharge packet or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board’s consideration. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing he must meet the burden of proof since the discharge packet is not available in the official record.

6. Therefore, based on the available evidence and on the presumption of government regularity, it appears the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief.


Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 17 December 2014 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

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) AR20140002183

Page 5 of 5 pages