IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 June 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090006112 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states that he believes his rights were violated and that he should be considered for reenlistment. 3. The applicant provides no additional documents with his application. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant initially enlisted in the Marine Corps on 26 August 1986 and while in basic training at Parris Island, South Carolina, he was discharged on 12 September 1986, with an entry level separation, due to fraudulent entry due to pre-service drug use without admission. He had served 17 days of active service. 2. On 12 February 1991, he enlisted in the Massachusetts Army National Guard (MAARNG) with a moral waiver for a period of 8 years, training as an infantryman and a cash enlistment bonus. 3. He was ordered to initial active duty for training (IADT) on 15 August 1991 and was transferred to Fort Benning, Georgia to undergo his one-station unit training (OSUT). He completed his training and was released from active duty for training on 13 December 1991 and was returned to his MAARNG unit. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 30 October 1992. 4. All of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's administrative discharge are not present in the available records; however, his records do show that numerous attempts were made to contact the applicant when he failed to show up for scheduled drills. The applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) for annual training during the period 15 to 29 June 1996. The unit commander reduced him to the pay grade of E-2 and initiated a bar to reenlistment against the applicant which was approved by the battalion commander. Additionally, the commander initiated an arrest warrant to have the applicant returned to military control. There is no indication that civil authorities were successful in serving that warrant. 5. The applicant's records contain a duly authenticated NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) which shows that he was discharged under honorable conditions on 15 August 1996 under the provisions of National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200, paragraph 8-27g, due to unsatisfactory participation. He was transferred to the United States Army Reserve Control Group (Annual Training) where he remained until he was honorably discharged on 8 June 1999. 6. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 12 January 2008 and on 7 March 2008, the ADRB determined that his discharge was both proper and equitable under the circumstances and denied his request for an upgrade. 7. NGR 600-200 and Army Regulation 135-91 govern procedures covering, in part, enlisted personnel management of the Army National Guard. Chapter 8 of NGR 600-200 covers, in pertinent part, reasons for discharge and separation of enlisted personnel from the Army National Guard. Paragraph 8-27(g) of that regulation provides in pertinent part that individuals can be separated for unsatisfactory participation. Army Regulation 135-91 defines unsatisfactory participation as nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills within a 1-year period. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's contention that his rights were violated have been noted and appear to lack merit. 2. The available evidence shows that numerous attempts were made to get the applicant to attend drills and he simply failed to comply. Notwithstanding that it was the applicant's obligation to always keep his unit aware of his contact number and address, the applicant also had a contractual obligation to attend drills or to secure an unexcused absence when necessary. There is no evidence to show that he made any such attempts. 3. While the applicant contends that his discharge was unjust, he has failed to show through the evidence of record or evidence submitted with his application that such was the case. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations with no violations of any of the applicant's rights. 4. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X__ ___X____ __X_____ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. ___________X_________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090006112 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090006112 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1