| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to show that his characterization of service in the Wisconsin Army National Guard (WIARNG) was honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was discharged for not attending meetings while in pretrial restraint for an offense for which he was acquitted. The applicant provided a copy of a computer-accessed document from The Circuit Court Automation Program (CCAP) Wisconsin Circuit Court Access, for which the subject is not identified.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's available military records show:
On 6 February 1996, the applicant enlisted in the WIARNG.
During the period 16 July through 22 November 1996, the applicant served on active duty for training and was awarded military occupational specialty 95B (Military Policeman).
On 1 June 1998, he was advanced to pay grade E-4.
During the period 12 September 1999 through 7 June 2000, the applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) from scheduled assemblies on 34 occasions. During this period he failed to notify or advise the WIARNG of his whereabouts or provide a reason for his failure to participate. He failed to acknowledge attempts to clarify his status on several occasions.
On 7 November 2000, after repeated warnings, Unit Order 0312-002, 32nd Military Police Company, WIARNG reduced him to pay grade E-3 for inefficiency.
On 7 November 2000, the unit commander submitted a request for the separation/discharge/transfer of the applicant under National Guard Regulation 600-200, chapter 8, based on his accrual of 12 AWOLs and failure to respond to any contact attempts by the unit.
On 10 November 2000, the request was approved and the applicant was discharged from the Army National Guard under the above-cited regulation with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.
On 23 November 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board found his discharge to be proper and equitable and denied his request for upgrade.
Army Regulation 135-91 (Service Obligation, Methods of Fulfillment, Participation Requirements and Enforcement Procedures) indicates, in pertinent part, that a member is an unsatisfactory participant when nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills occurs during a 1-year period.
National Guard Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management) indicates at paragraph 8-26(g) that individuals can be separated for being an unsatisfactory participant.
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations,
1. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
3. 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 the preceding requirement.
4. 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
__aao___ __mmh___ _kah___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001059244 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020129 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054906C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. (1) falsely stated that he had successfully completed the SCOBC, when, in fact, he had failed to meet the academic requirements for graduation; The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that his discharge was conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at...
ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090003061
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. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 8, paragraph 8-27g, NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participation with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new...
AF | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060015408
An enlisted member separated for misconduct which includes unsatisfactory participation will normally be furnished a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions, but characterization as general, under honorable conditions may be warranted under the guidelines in chapter 2, section III in accordance with Army Regulation 135-178. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant's available military records for the period...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050017174C070206
In addition, due to the fact that the applicant was not assigned to either the MDARNG or the WIARNG on 17 August 2004, neither headquarters had the authority to promote him on that date. In the advisory opinion the official indicates that the applicant became eligible for promotion to 1LT on 17 August 2004 and adds, in effect, for reasons that can not be determined, the applicant was not promoted when he became eligible for promotion to 1LT. The evidence of records shows that the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020209
The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 28 November 2006 to show: * award of the Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal, Joint Meritorious Unit Award, and the Humanitarian Service Medal * his current address * the dates of his service from his Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) call-up in 2009 and 2010 2. However, the DD Form 214 is a record of service at the time of release from active duty. As a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000512
He claims he resigned his commission so he would not be a non-select by an Army board and have a break in service. Chapter 9, Table 9-1 provides the regulatory civilian education requirements and states, in pertinent part, that a commissioned officer who received an initial appointment after 30 September 1983, who has no commissioned officer service before that date, must obtain a baccalaureate degree in order to qualify for promotion to the rank of major. The evidence of record confirms...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011539
f. An e-mail, dated 3 June 2013, from a Service Retirement Specialist, WIARNG, to the Chief, Retired Pay Branch, HRC, shows the Service Retirement Specialist confirmed the FSM did not receive his 20-year letter until 7 January 2001 and had made his RCSBP election within 90 days of receipt of the letter. In light of the available evidence, it would be appropriate to correct the FSM's record to show his RCSBP election was made and processed in a timely fashion after the issue date of this...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004101
The applicant requests his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to show his date of separation as 21 June 2010. The applicant's DD Form 214 correctly shows the period he served on active duty as ending on 21 March 2010. The applicant has provided no evidence that he remained in an active duty status after 21 March 2010.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012988
National Guard Bureau Federal Recognition Orders Number 127 AR, dated 16 May 2006, awarded the applicant permanent Federal Recognition for initial appointment to the grade of second lieutenant, effective 30 March 2006. However, should the initial period of temporary Federal Recognition expire due to administrative processing delays, through no fault of the member, a subsequent Federal Recognition Board should be convened to consider the request again and grant another new period of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015370
A letter, dated 10 June 2011, from TAG, WIARNG, who supports his request for a non-regular retirement citing the applicant's medical condition as the reason for non-compliance with the law that required the last 6 years to be in a Reserve Component in order to qualify for non-regular retirement. Army Regulation 135-180 (ARNG and Army Reserve Qualifying Service for Retired Pay Nonregular Service), paragraph 2-1a, states that to be eligible for retired pay an individual does not need to have...