RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         27 SEPTEMBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040011184


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Gale J. Thomas                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Ronald Blakely                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Lawrence Foster               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. LaVerne Douglas               |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that the character of his military
service be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, his discharge was wrong and resulted
from an abuse of authority as a result of religious discrimination.  He
states the person from the Army Discharge Review Board who concluded his
discharge was proper was wrong.

3.  The applicant also notes that he did not receive credit for his first 6
years of military service.

4.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records available to the Board indicate the applicant enlisted in the
New York Army National Guard for a period of 6 years on 12 May 1982 after
receiving a waiver for a prior civil conviction.  He successfully completed
basic and advanced individual training and served without incident through
his April 1988 extension of his initial enlistment contract by an
additional 6 years.

2.  In November 1991 the applicant's file indicates he was flagged for
failing the Army Physical Fitness Test.

3.  In the spring of 1992 the applicant was counseled regarding his
unexcused absences from unit drills.  When acknowledging the counseling,
the applicant noted he had conflicts between military standards and his
personal life, as well as other personal problems which prevented him from
attending drills.  In a
16 May 1992 counseling document the applicant related that the demands
placed on him by his religious beliefs and his congregation forced him to
miss drills.  The counseling statement noted the applicant's unexcused
absences from drill had become the norm.

4.  An order contained in the applicant's file indicates he was reduced
from pay grade E-4 to pay grade E-3 effective 1 May 1992 for inefficiency.


5.  Although documents associated with the applicant's discharge from the
Army National Guard were not in records available to the Board, on 1 August
1992 he was discharged from the Army National Guard under honorable
conditions and transferred to the United States Army Reserve Control Group
(Annual Training).  His National Guard Bureau separation document does
reflect the applicant's entire military service between his 12 May 1982
enlistment date and his 1 August 1992 discharge date and indicates he was
discharged under the provisions of National Guard Bureau Regulation 600-200
and issued a National Guard Bureau From 56a (general discharge).

6.  Another order, dated 17 November 1992 notes the applicant was
voluntarily transferred from the United States Army Reserve Control Group
(Annual Training) to the 99th Signal Battalion in Brooklyn, New York, a
United States Army Reserve Troop Program Unit.

7.  The applicant's file notes that he was notified several times early in
1993 that he continued to accumulate unexcused absences and that the
unexcused absences could result in his transfer to the Individual Ready
Reserve.  He was also advised to contact his commander if family
responsibilities or a civilian job was causing a hardship for him.  The
letters noted that the applicant was advised that there were proper
procedures available to assist him in resolving those problems.

8.  On 11 March 1993 the applicant was transferred from the 99th Signal
Battalion to the United States Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement)
because he failed to report for duty.  On 17 May 1994 the applicant was
discharged from the United States Army Reserve.

9.  On 23 November 2004 the Army Discharge Review Board unanimously denied
the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge noting that in the
absence of evidence to the contrary regularity was presumed that his
discharge was both proper and equitable.

10.  National Guard Bureau Regulation 600-200 refers commanders to Army
Regulation 135-178 (Enlisted Separations) for the policies and procedures
for discharging members of the Army National Guard.  That regulation notes
that Soldiers may be discharged for unsatisfactory performance and may be
discharge under honorable conditions if warranted by his or her military
records.

11.  Army Regulation 135-178 states that an honorable characterization of
service is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally
has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for
military personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other
characterization would be clearly inappropriate.


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Contrary to the applicant's contention, his initial 6 years of service
with the Army National Guard was captured on his 1992 separation document.


2.  While documents associated with the applicant's discharge from the Army
National Guard were not in records available to the Board, it appears,
based on the evidence which is available, that he was discharged for
failing to attend scheduled drills and as such, accumulated several
unexcused absences resulting in his discharge.  He was advised when
notified in the spring of 1992 that such unexcused absences could result in
his discharge.

3.  There is no evidence the applicant sought the assistance of members of
his chain of command to resolve conflicts between his military service and
his religion and he has not provided any evidence to this Board supporting
his contention that he was unjustly discharged because of religious
discrimination.  Rather the evidence available to the Board suggests the
discharge resulted from his failure to attend drills.

4.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board concludes that
the applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in accordance
with applicable laws and regulations and that the finding and conclusions
of the Army Discharge Review Board that his discharge was both proper and
equitable was an accurate finding.  The applicant has provided no evidence
which contradicts that finding or conclusion.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy that request requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__RB   __  __LF____  __LD  ___  DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate the
existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board
determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis
for correction of the records of the individual concerned.




                                  ______Ronald Blakely_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040011184                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050927                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]