IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  3 June 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090020871 


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 reconsideration of his earlier request for an upgrade of his Army National Guard (ARNG) discharge from general to honorable and restoration of his original rank/grade of specialist four (SP4)/E-4.

2.  The applicant states he will be filing court documents against this Board.  The problem he has is that this Board can't account for any of his records.  This Board is so disorganized that it has no idea how to handle such cases.  The Board is weighing one signature on his National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form      22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) on his entire Army career which is unfair.  As the Board knows, officers who signed the NGB Form 22 normally have a pile of forms every drill weekend to sign.  Those officers do not know if the forms they sign are correct or not; they just sign these documents without knowing the true facts.  It appears that the Board does not want to rock the boat, so to speak, by not admitting that the ARNG made a mistake.  He adds that he understands that they are a "Good Ole Boy Network" and would not admit that one of their officers made a mistake.  He suggests this Board do its job and do what is right.  He knows this Board does not like to change things; however, this is just the start of things to come against this Board.

3.  The applicant did not provide any additional documentary evidence in support of his request.




CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20090008239, on 3 November 2009.

2.  The applicant submitted a self-authored statement highlighting a new argument which was not previously reviewed by the ABCMR; therefore, it is considered new evidence and as such warrants consideration by the Board.

3.  Having had prior active service in the Regular Army, the applicant's records show he enlisted in the Missouri Army National Guard (MOARNG) for a period of 1 year, 11 months, and 3 days, in the rank/grade of SP4/E-4 on 25 May 1988.  

4.  His records show he held military occupational specialty 31C (Single Channel Radio Operator) and he was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 110th Engineer Battalion, Kansas City, MO.

5.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's discharge are not available for review with this case.  However, his service record contains the following documents:

	a.  Orders 232-027, dated 20 August 1989, issued by Headquarters, MOARNG, Office of the Adjutant General, Jefferson City, MO, discharging him from the MOARNG under the provisions of paragraph 8-27g of National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management) and reassignment to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Individual Ready Reserve or IRR) with a general discharge by reason of unsatisfactory participation, effective 20 August 1989.

	b.  NGB Form 22, dated 20 August 1989, that shows he was discharged without personal notice under the provisions of paragraph 8-27g of NGR 600-200.  His rank/grade was that of a private first class (PFC)/E-3 with a date of rank of 20 August 1989, he received a general character of service (NGB Form 56A), and he was transferred to the USAR Control Group (IRR).

6.  On 3 November 2009, the Board denied his petition for an upgrade of his discharge and restoration of his SP4/E-4 rank/grade.

7.  NGR 600-200 prescribes policies and procedures for enlistment, reenlistment, administrative instructions, classifications, transfers and attachments, voluntary active duty, promotions, and discharges and separations of ARNG members.  The regulation defines a NGB Form 56a as the form issued to a Soldier who is discharged from the ARNG only and reverts to control of the Army Reserve; whose discharge from such service is under honorable conditions; and whose military record is not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

	a.  Paragraph 6-15 of the version in effect at the time states that commanders who have the authority to promote enlisted personnel also have the authority to reduce personnel. 

	b.  Paragraph 8-27g of this regulation stated that a Soldier would be discharged from the ARNG for unsatisfactory participation.  The regulation also stated that the Soldiers would be notified of recommendations for involuntary discharge and afforded a reasonable opportunity to provide a written response for consideration by the separation authority.  Characterization of service would be in accordance with applicable State codes.   

8.  NGR 600-200 provides, in pertinent part, that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

9.  Army Regulation 135-91 (Service Obligations, Methods of Fulfillment,
Participation Requirements, and Enforcement Procedures) governs service obligations of members of the Reserve Components.  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 one year period.

10.  Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR.  The ABCMR considers individual applications that are properly brought before it and, in appropriate cases, it directs or recommends correction of military records to remove an error or injustice.  The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The ABCMR is not an investigative agency.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.






DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded and his rank should be restored.

2.  The applicant’s record is void of the facts and circumstances that led to his discharge.  However, his record contains a properly-constituted NGB Form 22 that shows he was discharged on 20 August 1989 under the provisions of paragraph 8-27g of NGR 600-200 by reason of unsatisfactory participation with a character of service of under honorable conditions (general).  This form also shows he was reduced to PFC/E-3 on the same date.

3.  The applicant was required to attend all scheduled unit training assemblies and annual training periods and appears to have accrued a period of unexcused absence.  It is presumed that subsequent to a number of unexcused absences, his chain of command requested his discharge from the MOARNG for unsatisfactory participation.  It also appears that the separation authority approved the request and he was separated on 20 August 1989 and transferred to the USAR Control Group (IRR) in accordance with regulatory guidance.

4.  The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Aside from his dissatisfaction with the Board's earlier decision, he fails to provide any information that would indicate the contrary.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to grant him relief.

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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20090008239, dated 3 November 2009.




      _______ _   _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)                                         AR20090020871





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090020871



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1