Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999025851
Original file (1999025851.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
PART II - APPLICATION DATA

(Note: Part I deleted under the Privacy Act on Reading Room copy)

1. Character of Discharge: GD

2. Date of discharge (or REFRAD): 950101

3. Authority for separation:

         a. Regulation: Paragraph 8-27q, NGR 600-200

          b. Reason: Unsatisfactory Participant
4. Prior review(s): NONE


PART III - SERVICE HISTORY

SECTION A - Period of Service Under Review

 1.       Service data: 2. Awards and decorations:
                            AAM
a. Period entered for: 1 Year 6 mos NDMS
b. Entry date: 910926 (3 yrs ext) SWASMw/2BSS
c. Age: 23 Years DOB: 680315 (930320) ASR
d. Educational level: HS Grad OSR
e. Aptitude area score:
          GT: 110 3. Highest grade achieved:
f. Length of Service: E4
3 Years 3 Months 6 Days

4. Performance evaluations:
NONE

PART III - SERVICE HISTORY
SECTION A - Period of Service Under Review - Continued

5. Periods of unauthorized absence: NONE

 Status Inclusive dates
         AWOL

         Mil conf

         Civil conf

         Other


6. Nonjudicial punishment: NONE
         Date     Offense(s)
        


7. Court-Martial data: NONE
         a. SCM:
                  Date Offense(s)

        
         b. SPCM:
                  Date Offense(s)

         c. GCM: 
                  Date Offense(s)


8.       Remarks: NONE
SECTION B - Prior Service Data

Other discharge(s):

          Service   From      To        Type Discharge
         ARNGUS 850327 860930 HD
         ARNG 850603 850901 HD
         (concurrent svc)
         RA 861014 910925 HD



PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW

SECTION A-ANALYST’S ASSESSMENT
l. Facts and Circumstances:

         a. The specific circumstances surrounding the events which led to the applicant’s discharge from the National Guard are not contained in the available records. However, the record does contain a National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) which documents the following facts: Authority for Separation-Paragraph 8-27q, National Guard Regulation (NGR)
600-200; Reason for Separation-Unsatisfactory Participant; Character of Service-general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD); and reentry eligibility (RE) code 3.

         b. On 1 January 1995, the applicant was discharged with a GD. At the time of his discharge he had completed 3 years, 3 months, 6 days of his current National Guard enlistment, 5 years, 2 months, 11 days of active military service, and a total of 9 years, 8 months, and 22 days of credible service.

         c. The applicant’s record shows that he had completed over 3 years of his current National Guard enlistment and the highest rank he attained during this enlistment was private first class/E-3. The circumstances surrounding the events which led to the applicant’s discharge from the National Guard for the period of enlistment under review are not contained in the available records. It is clear from the documents on file that the applicant was separated for unsatisfactorily participating in unit drills. The applicant had successfully served on active duty from 14 October 1986 to 25 September 1991 for which he appropriately received an honorable discharge.

2. Legal/Regulatory Basis for Separation Action : National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 and Army Regulation 135-91 govern procedures covering 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 State Army Reserve National Guard. Paragraph 8-27(g) of that regulation provides in pertinent part that individuals can be separated for being an unsatisfactory participant. Army Regulation 135-91 states that a member is an unsatisfactory participant when nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills occur during a 1 year period.


SECTION B-APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS


 1. Issue(s) of propriety and/or equity submitted by applicant or counsel.
As stated on applicant’s DD Form 293.
2. Exhibit(s) submitted:

         A-1: DD Form 293, dated 990426, with one (1) enclosure(s).
         A-2: Counsel Issues: NONE
         B-l: Other Documents: NONE

PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW (CONTINUED)



SECTION C - Medical and/or Legal Advisory Opinion


Referred to ( ) Medical Advisor ( ) Legal Advisor



 a. Medical prehearing comments (if applicable):

b. Legal prehearing comments (if applicable):
PART V - SUMMARY OF HEARING

SECTION A-Attendees and exhibits

1. Review/hearing information:

         a. Type requested:
         ( X ) Records review ( ) Hearing

         b. Type Held:
         ( X )Records review ( ) Hearing
         ( ) Tender Offer

         c. Review/hearing location and date: Washington D.C. on 30 June 1999.

         d. Appearance by:
          Applicant ( ) Yes ( X ) No
          Counsel ( ) Yes ( X ) No

          e. Applicant testified: ( ) Yes ( X ) No
        
         f. Counsel presentation: ( ) Yes ( X ) No
        
         g. Witness(es) testified: ( ) Yes ( X ) No
        
2. Exhibit(s) submitted at hearing:

PART VI - ISSUES AND FINDINGS

1. a. Applicant's issue(s) of propriety and/or equity:

          ( X )   Same as those listed on DD Form 293 and Part IV, Section A of this case report and directive.
         ( )     Revised issue(s) furnished in writing by applicant as follows:
         ( )     Additional issue(s) identified during review/hearing as follows:
         b. Request: ( X ) Recharacterization ( ) Change of Reason


2. Finding(s), conclusion(s), and reason(s) for the Board's decision(s) on issues of propriety and/or equity:


          a. Propriety:    The applicant has not submitted an issue of propriety and the ADRB has not otherwise relied upon an issue of propriety to change the discharge.
         b. Equity:       The parenthetical number(s) below correspond(s) to the issue number(s) on the DD Form 293, or in Part VI, Paragraph 1, above.

 (1), (2), and (3) The issues are rejected. The Board noted the applicant’s contentions that, in effect, he was a combat veteran who completed over 5 years in the active Army; that he had completed his 8 year obligation prior to discontinuing his participation in drills; and that his nonparticipation was the result of a death in the family. After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service for the period of enlistment under review, the Board concluded the discharge was appropriate. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his prior service mitigated his misconduct. The Board also noted that the applicant had been appropriately recognized for his active duty service with an honorable discharge at the time and that this service did not provide a basis for relief. Even if the applicant’s contention that a death in his family was the reason for his nonparticipation was true, the Board determined that he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, without committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. The Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief.
(4) The issue is rejected. The Army Discharge Review Board cannot change the applicant’s reentry eligibility (RE) code. To obtain a change in an RE code, the applicant should provide supporting documentation to justify any change and submit the request to the Commander, US Army PERSCOM, ATTN: TAPC-EPR-P, 2461 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22331-0450. To obtain a waiver for reenlistment, the applicant should contact a local Army recruiter for assistance.

 3. Response(s) to item(s) not addressed as decisional issue(s): NONE
PART VII - BOARD ACTION
SECTION A - Conclusions/Decisions/Vote

1.       Board conclusion(s):

         The discharge was:

          ( X )    Proper.
         ( )      Improper as to characterization. Change characterization to                                      .
         ( )      Improper as to reason. Change reason to                         under                       .

         ( X )    Equitable.
         ( )      Inequitable as to characterization. Change characterization to                                .
         ( )      Inequitable as to reason. Change reason to                       
                  under                                  .
         ( )      Both proper and equitable, but characterization/reason for separation cited was an administrative/clerical error and should be changed to                      under                          .
2. Voting record: Change No Change
         Reason 0 5
Characterization 0 5

         The names and votes of the members of the Board are recorded in Part IX of this document and can be obtained by writing to the address below. The request must contain the CASE NO. located in the upper right corner of this document.

Department of the Army Review Boards Agency
ATTN: Promulgation Team
1941 Jefferson Davis Highway, 2nd Floor
Arlington, VA 22202-4508



3. Minority views: NONE

PART VII - BOARD ACTION
SECTION B - Verification and Authentication

Case report reviewed and verified       

                                 
MR. ADRIANCE
Case Reviewing Official 

PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATION
SECTION A - DIRECTIVE
NONE
SECTION B - CERTIFICATION

Approval Authority:


THOMAS J. ALLEN
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge
Review Board

Official:




SUZANNE WALKER
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder

EXHIBITS:
A - Application for review of discharge          C - Other
B - Material submitted by applicant

INDEX RECORD:

 AR Number: 1999025851 INDEX NUMBERS: A9217
Date of Review: 990630 A9207
Character of Service: GD A9219
Date of Discharge: 950101 A9307
Authority: NGR 600-200 C8 A0100
Reason: A8400
Results of Board Action/
Vote/Affirmation: NC 5-0 A













PART IX - VOTING RECORD



 Name  Reason Characterization
 CHANGE NC HON UHC NC UNCHAR
1.      Mbr      X          X    

2.      Mbr      X          X    

3.      Mbr      X          X    

4.      Mbr      X          X    

5.      PO      X          X    





Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999024931

    Original file (1999024931.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    ( ) Both proper and equitable, but characterization/reason for separation cited was an administrative/clerical error and should be changed to under .2. PART VII - BOARD ACTIONSECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified MR. ADRIANCE Case Reviewing Official PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATIONSECTION A - DIRECTIVE THRU: Chief, National Guard Bureau Date: 22 June 1999 TO: Adjutant General, State of IllinoisThe Army Discharge Review Board, established under the...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2003 | 2003087591

    Original file (2003087591.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    His NGB Form 22 indicates that he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 8-27g, NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participation with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. On 1 May 1990, the applicant was discharged. PART VII - BOARD ACTIONSECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified Ms. McKim-Spilker Case Reviewing Official PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATIONSECTION A - DIRECTIVE NONE SECTION B - CERTIFICATION...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2003 | 2003086136

    Original file (2003086136.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board noted that the applicant’s record contains a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service). PART VII - BOARD ACTIONSECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified Ms. McKim-Spilker Case Reviewing Official PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATIONSECTION A - DIRECTIVE NONE SECTION B - CERTIFICATION Approval Authority:SPURGEON A. MOORE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board EXHIBITS: A - Application for...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2000 | 2000049587

    Original file (2000049587.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The evidence of record shows that on 3 May 1993, the unit commander requested that the applicant be discharged from the Virginia Army National Guard effecting the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of Chapter 8, NGR 600-200 by reason of unsatisfactory participation. On 21 May 1993, the applicant was discharged. EXHIBITS: A - Application for review of discharge C - Other B - Material submitted by applicant

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2001 | 2001059060

    Original file (2001059060.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board noted that the applicant’s record contains a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service). The Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were proper and equitable, voted to deny relief.3. PART VII - BOARD ACTIONSECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified Ms. McKim-Spilker Case Reviewing Official PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATIONSECTION A - DIRECTIVE NONE SECTION B -...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2002 | 2002067598

    Original file (2002067598.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant's issue(s) of propriety and/or equity: ( X ) Same as those listed on DD Form 293 and Part IV, Section A of this case report and directive. The applicant’s record contains a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) reflecting an honorable discharge and an order discharging the applicant from the Arizona Army National Guard with a general discharge and assigning her to the USAR Control Group. Accordingly, the Board determined from the evidence...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 99032309

    Original file (99032309.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    His NGB Form 22 indicates that he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 8, Paragraph 8-26q, NGR 600-200 by reason of misconduct-unsatisfactory participant with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions discharge. The Board carefully reviewed the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review. EXHIBITS: A - Application for review of discharge C - Other B - Material submitted by applicant

  • ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999027476

    Original file (1999027476.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Prior review(s): NONE PART III - SERVICE HISTORY SECTION A - Period of Service Under Review 1. PART VII - BOARD ACTIONSECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified MRS. WADE Case Reviewing Official PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATIONSECTION A - DIRECTIVE NONE SECTION B - CERTIFICATION Approval Authority:THOMAS J. ALLEN Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board EXHIBITS: A - Application for review of discharge C - Other B - Material submitted...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2003 | 2003090510

    Original file (2003090510.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The record contains a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) showing that he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 8-27g, AR NGR 600-200 as an unsatisfactory participant, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. PART VII - BOARD ACTIONSECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified Ms. McKim-Spilker Case Reviewing Official PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATIONSECTION A - DIRECTIVE...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2001 | 2001059526

    Original file (2001059526.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    His NGB Form 22 indicates that he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 8-27g, NGR 600-200 by reason of unsatisfactory participant, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. In view of the foregoing, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable. EXHIBITS: A - Application for review of discharge C - Other B - Material submitted by applicant