Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 070920 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents submitted by the applicant. 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: 010307 Chapter: 8-26 AR: NGR 600-200 Reason: Failure to Report to IADT Phase 1 or 2 RE: SPD: NIF Unit/Location: HHC, 1-115 Inf, Silver Springs, MD Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Year/Month: 7105 HOR City, State: Rockville, MD Current ENL Date: 990414 Current ENL Term: 8 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 10Mos, 24Days ????? Total Service: 01 Yrs, 10Mos, 24Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-2 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: None GT: NIF EDU: GED Cert Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: None V. Post-Discharge Activity Post Service Accomplishments: None listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence shows the applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army. The record indicates that on 23 March 2001, State of Maryland Military Department, Fifth Regiment Armory, Baltimore, MD, Orders 045-202, discharged the applicant from the Army National Guard, effective 7 March 2001, with an uncharacterized discharge. The record contains a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service). It indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Paragraph 8-26, NGR 600-200, by reason of failure to report to IADT phase 1 or 2, with a uncharacterized discharge, and a reenlistment code of 3. 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 8-26(n) of that regulation provides in pertinent part that individuals can be separated for failing to report to IADT phase 1 or 2. For ARNGUS and USAR soldiers, entry-level status begins upon enlistment in the ARNG or USAR. For soldiers ordered to IADT for one continuous period, It terminates 180 days after beginning training. For soldiers ordered to IADT for the split or alternate training option, it terminates 90 days after beginning Phase II advanced individual training (AIT). Soldiers completing Phase I BT or basic combat training (BCT) remain in entry-level status until 90 days after beginning Phase II. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s available records for the period of enlistment under review, and the issues and documents he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army National Guard and the Reserve of the Army. However, the applicant’s record contains a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) which identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process. 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. The analyst noted the applicant’s contentions; however, the evidence was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review. The applicant was in entry level status and an honorable characterization of service is not authorized. Therefore, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service remains both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 080730 Location: Washington DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA 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 and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA 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: 080801 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20070013010 ______________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 4 pages