| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member | ||
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge from the Army National Guard (ARNG) be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that an automobile accident left him disoriented and disabled.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He served on active duty in the Regular Army for 5 months and 20 days between 20 December 1974 and 9 June 1975. He served in the ARNG from
19 December 1979 through 14 January 1981.
On 9 March 1982, the applicant entered the ARNG and began serving the enlistment under review. The record shows that he served with Battery D,
4th Battalion, 200th Air Defense Artillery, Clovis, New Mexico, and performed duties in military occupational specialty (MOS) 36K (Tactical Wire Operations Specialist). It further shows that the highest rank he held was private/E-2, and there are no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition documented in the record during this period of service.
The specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge processing are not on file. However the record does contain a properly constituted separation document (NGB 22). This document confirms that
the applicant was discharged from the ARNG under the provisions of paragraph 7-10t, National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200, by reason of misconduct.
The medical records available on the applicant do not reveal a disqualifying medical condition that would have rendered him unqualified for continued service at the time of his discharge.
NGR 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), in effect at the time, established standards, policies, and procedures for the assignment of ARNG soldiers. Chapter 7 provided the policy for the separation and discharge of ARNG soldiers and paragraph 7-10t provided the authority for the State to discharge members for misconduct.
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 notes and carefully considered the applicant’s contention that he suffered injuries in automobile accident that impaired his ability to serve. However, it finds no evidence showing that the applicant suffered from a disqualifying medical condition at the time of his discharge. Thus, the Board concludes this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.
2. The evidence of record is void of a discharge packet containing the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to the applicant’s discharge. However, the Board notes that there is a properly constituted
NGB Form 22 on file. This separation document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge, and the Board presumes government regularity in the discharge process.
3. Lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were protected throughout the separation process. Thus, the Board finds an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the requested relief.
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.
5. 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
RKS__ __JM___ __JHL _ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003089845 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/07/DD |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1982/10/07 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | NGB 600-200 C7 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Misconduct |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 360 | 144.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130010974
IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 11 April 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20130010974 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. On 20 June 2011, The Adjutant General, Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040005903C070208
The applicant provides an application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) in support of his application. The ADRB further recommended that The Adjutant General (TAG) of the States of Washington upgrade the applicant’s discharge from the WAARNG to a GD and change the authority and reason for his discharge to paragraph 27y, National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200, by reason of “as a result of discharge from the Reserve of the Army”. Paragraph 8-27y provides the authority to discharge...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130005017
The applicant states he served in the Army and Army National Guard and was discharged honorably. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 1 August 2008 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Abuse of Illegal Drugs), NGR 600-200, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: HHC, 1st Bn, 178th Inf, Illinois Army National Guard, Chicago, IL f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 15 September 2003, NIF g. Current Enlistment Service: 4 years, 10 months, 17 days h. Total...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130000151
On 19 October 2012, The Adjutant General, Army National Guard of the State of Wisconsin, reviewed the applicants request for a change in his discharge and denied his request. The burden of proof remains with the applicant to provide the appropriate documents such as the discharge packet or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130008498
Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard on 15 May 2000 for a period of 6 years. The record contains a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service). EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: Counsel provided DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States), a memorandum from her counsel, Mr. M, dated 21 December 2012, a letter from the Staff Judge...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130004427
The burden of proof remains with the applicant to provide the appropriate documents such as the discharge packet or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration. The applicant provided documentation from the New York ARNG, which indicates that on 4 February 2009, his request for a change in his discharge was denied. Board Vote: Character Change: 2 No Change: 3 Reason Change: 0 No Change: 5 (Board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013223
x The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant states, in effect, that in 1992, he was discharged from the Arkansas Army National Guard (ARNG) with a less than honorable discharge because of a positive drug urinalysis. While in the opinion of the separation authority, the applicant's overall record of service supported the issue of a GD instead of an UOTHC discharge at the time of his separation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010486C070208
The applicant requests his effective date of [permanent] Federal recognition as a Medical Service Corps officer be established as 4 August 2004 (sic). The applicant provides his initial appointment order in the Army National Guard (ARNG), dated 13 August 2002 with a temporary Federal recognition date of 4 August 2002; his oath of office as a National Guard officer; an NGB Form 89 (Proceedings of a Federal Recognition Examining Board) dated 17 July 2002; his second oath office as a National...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130004353
In the 2 years he served as an enlisted member of the Army National Guard (ARNG), he had an extraordinary service record. It was determined that as a split option Soldier, who did not complete all the required training to become MOS qualified, he was considered in an entry level status. The regulation stipulates that a separation will be described as entry-level with service uncharacterized if, at the time separation action is initiated if, the Soldier is on a split option and has not...
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080003455
It indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Paragraph 8-27f, NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participation, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions, and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of "3." It indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Paragraph 8-27f, NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participation, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions, and...