| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge be upgraded and the reason for his separation be changed. (On 24 August 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) recommended that the Army National Guard (ARNG) change his Report of Separation and Record of Service, NGB Form 22, to show he received a fully honorable discharge.)
APPLICANT STATES: That he was not absent without leave (AWOL). He went through his chain of command, explaining that his job was conflicting with his Tennessee Army National Guard (TNARNG) duties and requesting discharge. His commander told him he would complete the necessary paperwork to terminate his contract but never did. He never received the notices that he had unexcused absences or that he was going to be separated for unsatisfactory participation. He provides two letters as supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the TNARNG on 4 August 1980.
Beginning around October 1989, the applicant was sent several notices of unexcused absences by certified mail. At no time was the certified mail receipt signed. One time, the envelope was annotated as not deliverable.
On or about 5 December 1989, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for separation for unsatisfactory participation. The applicant never responded to this notification, apparently because it was never received by him.
On 1 February 1990, the applicant was discharged from the ARNG with a general under honorable conditions discharge and transferred to the U. S. Army Reserve (USAR) Individual Ready Reserve after completing 9 years, 5 months, and 28 days of service.
On 3 August 1992, the applicant was honorably discharged from the USAR. He apparently reenlisted in the ARNG in 1999.
The applicant provides one letter of support from a Chief Warrant Officer Four (CW4) who apparently was a supervisor of the applicant. The CW4 states that he remembered the applicant leaving the unit due to a job conflict but did not remember the specifics concerning the situation. He did remember that a number of unit members had requested transfer or discharge and for unknown
reasons their requests were not processed and they were discharged for being AWOL. The CW4 could not say that he personally saw the applicant’s request but gave him the benefit of the doubt.
The other letter is signed by an individual who was apparently the applicant’s section chief. However, the wording of the letter indicates that it was written by the applicant.
Army Regulation 135-91 prescribes policies governing the various types of service obligations and participation requirements and applies to ARNG and USAR soldiers. In pertinent part, it states that a member is an unsatisfactory participant when nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills occur during a 1-year period.
National Guard Regulation 600-200 governs procedures covering enlisted personnel management of the ARNG. In pertinent part, it states that an individual can be separated for being an unsatisfactory participant.
On 24 August 2001, the ADRB found, because of the applicant’s length of service, his generally acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty, and the completion of his entire service obligation, that the characterization of service received from the TNARNG was inequitable. The ADRB voted to upgrade the characterization of his service to fully honorable. The ADRB, however, could not find sufficient evidence to support the applicant’s contention that he notified his command of his desire to be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve prior to completion of his contractual agreement with the TNARNG and voted not to change the reason for his discharge.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The Board is in agreement with the ADRB in finding that there is insufficient evidence to show the applicant notified his command of his desire to terminate his ARNG contract. The CW4 was not sure of the facts in the applicant’s specific case and stated so in his support letter. Although the other support letter was signed by an individual who was apparently the applicant’s section chief, it was in fact a first-hand recitation of the applicant’s view of the facts and not a statement of the facts as that section chief remembered them.
2. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__lls___ __mhm___ __jtm___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001053998 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010906 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.02 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000545C070206
The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which occurred on 1 January 1987, the date of his discharge. On 3 October 1986, the commander submitted a request through channels to the State Adjutant General requesting that the applicant be discharged under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army National Guard Regulation 600-200, paragraph 7-10r, for unsatisfactory participation of members. On 1 January 1987, the applicant was discharged, under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070018309
On 12 December 1981, Headquarters, First United States Army, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, published Orders 240-42, relieving the applicant from his USAR unit of assignment for being an unsatisfactory participant, and assigning him to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training), effective 16 November 1981, under other than honorable conditions. On 13 April 1985, U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center, St. Louis, Missouri, published Orders Number D-04-907107, ordering the applicant discharged...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002123C070205
He requested the applicant be separated with a general discharge. The applicant was separated from the CTARNG, in pay grade E-2, on 4 December 1985, under the provisions of National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200, Paragraph 7-10r and Chapter 4, Section III, Army Regulation 135- 91, Unsatisfactory Participation, with more than 9 absences without leave (AWOL). The applicant's service at the time of his discharge from the CTARNG was characterized as general.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000581
The applicant requests promotion to chief warrant officer five (CW5). He had over 18 years of time in grade (TIG) as a chief warrant officer four (CW4), completed the Warrant Officer Senior Staff Course, selected by the State Adjutant General, and performed CW5 duties as the Detachment Commander, Detachment 25 (DET 25), OSA (Operational Support Airlift), Tennessee Army National Guard (TNARNG), Smyrna, TN, for 19 months (February 2008 through August 2009). The applicant provides: * a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007848
The applicant requests correction of his record to show he was not released from his U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) unit as an unsatisfactory participant. The applicant enlisted in the USAR for a term of 8 years on 29 July 1991. His family of four have already sold their home and he would like the Board to consider amending his discharge to honorable, as he feels being released in October 1997 as an unsatisfactory participant is painful.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010715
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 March 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090010715 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant was also advised to contact the unit administrator TNARNG to complete the interstate transfer action and that his failure to do so would result in additional unsatisfactory performance of duty reports, termination, repayment of incentives, and possible arrest for being AWOL. The available evidence does not show the applicant ever made contact with unit...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070007612C071029
Army Regulation 135-91 states general officer commanders are authorized to grant exceptions to unexcused absences. Army Regulation 135-91 states that, when the notices are personally delivered, the Soldier's signature will be obtained on the file copy as acknowledgment of receipt. The applicant next stated that, “…from his point of view at that time…” he was told that he was (i.e., a present action) in the “Inactive Army Ready Reserve.” It is acknowledged that the applicant had been in the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060807C070421
On 17 January 1991, the 3/200 ADA battalion commander sent to the applicant at his Loveland, Colorado, address, a AGONM Form 20-12-11B.2 (Record of Special Proceeding of Non-Judicial Punishment – Absence from Unit Training Assembly, Drill, or Annual Training), notifying the applicant of the commander’s intent to impose an Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), punishment of reduction in grade as a result of his 16 unexcused absences from unit drill from September through...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088635C070403
It states that a member is an unsatisfactory participant when nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills occur during a 1-year period. At the time the applicant enlisted in the MDARNG on 2 February 1980, he knew he was enlisting in the Maryland Army National Guard and as a Reserve of the Army. The Board is sympathetic with the problems he alleges to have encountered with his grandparents' illnesses and their lack of transportation to get medical treatment when he enlisted; but...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017535
The applicant requests upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. There is no evidence he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all of the evidence of record.