IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 4 June 2009
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090006112
THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:
1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).
2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.
2. The applicant states that he believes his rights were violated and that he should be considered for reenlistment.
3. The applicant provides no additional documents with his application.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant initially enlisted in the Marine Corps on 26 August 1986 and while in basic training at Parris Island, South Carolina, he was discharged on 12 September 1986, with an entry level separation, due to fraudulent entry due to pre-service drug use without admission. He had served 17 days of active service.
2. On 12 February 1991, he enlisted in the Massachusetts Army National Guard (MAARNG) with a moral waiver for a period of 8 years, training as an infantryman and a cash enlistment bonus.
3. He was ordered to initial active duty for training (IADT) on 15 August 1991 and was transferred to Fort Benning, Georgia to undergo his one-station unit training (OSUT). He completed his training and was released from active duty for training on 13 December 1991 and was returned to his MAARNG unit. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 30 October 1992.
4. All of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's administrative discharge are not present in the available records; however, his records do show that numerous attempts were made to contact the applicant when he failed to show up for scheduled drills. The applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) for annual training during the period 15 to 29 June 1996. The unit commander reduced him to the pay grade of E-2 and initiated a bar to reenlistment against the applicant which was approved by the battalion commander. Additionally, the commander initiated an arrest warrant to have the applicant returned to military control. There is no indication that civil authorities were successful in serving that warrant.
5. The applicant's records contain a duly authenticated NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) which shows that he was discharged under honorable conditions on 15 August 1996 under the provisions of National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200, paragraph 8-27g, due to unsatisfactory participation. He was transferred to the United States Army Reserve Control Group (Annual Training) where he remained until he was honorably discharged on 8 June 1999.
6. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 12 January 2008 and on 7 March 2008, the ADRB determined that his discharge was both proper and equitable under the circumstances and denied his request for an upgrade.
7. NGR 600-200 and Army Regulation 135-91 govern procedures covering, in part, 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 Army National Guard. Paragraph 8-27(g) of that regulation provides in pertinent part that individuals can be separated for unsatisfactory participation. Army Regulation 135-91 defines unsatisfactory participation as nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills within a 1-year period.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's contention that his rights were violated have been noted and appear to lack merit.
2. The available evidence shows that numerous attempts were made to get the applicant to attend drills and he simply failed to comply. Notwithstanding that it was the applicant's obligation to always keep his unit aware of his contact number and address, the applicant also had a contractual obligation to attend drills or to secure an unexcused absence when necessary. There is no evidence to show that he made any such attempts.
3. While the applicant contends that his discharge was unjust, he has failed to show through the evidence of record or evidence submitted with his application that such was the case. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations with no violations of any of the applicant's rights.
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.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
____X__ ___X____ __X_____ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
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.
___________X_________
CHAIRPERSON
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090006112
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090006112
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
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 | DRB | CY2003 | AR2003095106
On 5 February 2000, as a result of the applicant’s unexcused absences and having received no response from the applicant, the unit commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Chapter 8, Paragraph 8-26k, NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. It indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Paragraph 8-26k, NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participant, with a characterization...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003309
On 29 July 1992, VAARNG published Orders 146-57 discharging him from the ARNG and assigning him to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Annual Training) effective 31 July 1992 by reason of being an unsatisfactory participant, in accordance with chapter 8 of National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management). This regulation states that a member is an unsatisfactory participant when he or she accrues nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills during a...
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 | CY2007 | 20070016397
The applicant's military personnel record shows that he enlisted in the Army National Guard on 27 October 1977. The applicant was honorably released from active duty for training and transferred to the State of Michigan Army National Guard on 28 April 1978. He was issued a under other than honorable conditions discharge for misconduct under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management) and Army Regulation 135-178 (Separation of Enlisted Personnel).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010048C080410
The applicant requests that his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge. On 10 January 1988, the applicant was informed by the 351st Supply & Service Company, California Army National Guard, San Luis Obispo, California, that he had accumulated eight unexcused absences and was advised of the consequences of receiving more than nine unexcused absences within a 1-years period. On 7 February 1988, the applicant was informed by the 351st Supply & Service Company, California Army...
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060007408
Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See applicant's attached DD Form 293. 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 analyst does recommended to the Board that the applicant's narrative reason for discharge be change to NGR 600-200, paragraph 8-27(f) Unsatisfactory Paraticipant.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010116
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The letter indicated the termination had been initiated at the request of the applicants commanding officer because of his voluntary Unsatisfactory Participation (Unauthorized Absences from Inactive Duty Training Assemblies) in the Reserve Components, as required by Army Regulation 135-91. The evidence of record shows the applicant had missed unit drills without being excused from 5 to 6 January 1985 and 19 to 20 January 1985 (4...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120012089
On 16 April 2007, the immediate commander indicated the applicant had missed drills on 3 and 4 February 2007, 9, 10, and 11 March 2007, and 13, 14, and 15 April 2007; and that he (the applicant) was reported in an absent without leave (AWOL) status and had failed to notify the unit that he could not attend or provide an explanation. It appears after having accumulated over 9 unexcused absences, his chain of command initiated separation action against him under the provisions of chapter 13...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050005555C070206
Paragraph 2 informed him that under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-91, he was required to attend all scheduled unit training assemblies and annual training periods. On 14 January 1983, the applicant was discharged from the Army National Guard with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 135- 178 for unsatisfactory participation. Army Regulation 135-178 (Separation of Enlisted Personnel) provides for the separation of enlisted personnel of the Army Reserve and...