Application Receipt Date: 070517 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See applicant's DD Form 293 and attached documents. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Yes No Tender Offer: See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Original Character of Discharge Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 010719 Chapter: 8-27f AR: NGR 600-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Participant RE: SPD: NA Unit/Location: Time Lost: NIF Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 770301 Current ENL Date: 010126 Current ENL Term: NIF Years Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 05 Mos, 24 Days Total Service: 04 Yrs, 06Mos, 17 Days Item 12b on NGB Form 22, prior reserve component service is incorrect, should read 00 Yrs, 06 Mos, 17 Days. Further, item 12c on NGB Form 22, prior active Federal Service is incorrect, should read 04 Yrs, 00 Mos, 00 Days. Previous Discharges: USN-960709-000708/HD USNR-000709-010125/NA Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 44E10 Machinist GT: NIF EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: None V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The complete facts and circumstances leading to the applicant’s release from the State of New York Army National Guard and transfer to the United States Army Reserve Control Group (Annual Training) are not contained in the available records. However, the record does contain a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), which the applicant was unavailable for signature. It indicates he was discharged under the provisions of Paragraph 8-27f, NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participant, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions, and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of "3." The applicant has a Bar To Reenlistment dated 19 July 2001 in his Official Military Personnel File. b. Legal Basis for Separation: National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 and Army Regulation 135-91 govern procedures covering 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 State Army Reserve National Guard. Paragraph 8-27(f) of that regulation provides in pertinent part that individuals can be separated for being an unsatisfactory participant. Army Regulation 135-91 states that a member is an unsatisfactory participant when nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills occur during a 1 year period. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s available military records for the period of enlistment under review, the issue and documents he submitted, the analyst recommends that relief be denied in this case. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his release from the State of New York Army National Guard Army National Guard and transfer to the United States Army Reserve Control Group (Annual Training). However, the available records does contain a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), which the applicant was unavailable for signature. This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 8, Paragraph 8-27(f), NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participant, with a general, under honorable conditions characterization of service. Barring evidence to the contrary, the analyst 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 that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 14 November 2007 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: Witnesses/Observers: Exhibits Submitted: VIII. Board Decision The discharge was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The characterization of service was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The narrative reasons were: Equitable Inequitable DRB voting record: Change 0 No change 5 - Character Change 0 No change 5 - Reason (Board member names available upon request) IX. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony, and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it. Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Kenneth McFarley, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: None Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: None XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder