Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999034613
Original file (1999034613.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
PART II - APPLICATION DATA

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

1. Character of Discharge: General, Under Honorable Conditions

2. Date of discharge (or REFRAD): 980106

3. Authority for separation:

         a. Regulation: Chapter 8, NGR 600-200

          b. Reason: Acts or Patterns of Misconduct
4. Prior review(s): NONE


PART III - SERVICE HISTORY

SECTION A - Period of Service Under Review

 1.       Service data: 2. Awards and decorations:
                            ARCOM(3)
a. Period entered for: 8 Years (3 yrs ext) AAM(3)
b. Entry date: 840629 (950506) NSDM
c. Age: 20 Years DOB: 640310 NCOPDR(2)
d. Educational level: HS Grad ASR
e. Aptitude area score: C/Ach(3)
          GT: 130 L/C((4)
f. Length of Service: C/A
13 Year(s) 6 Month(s) 8 Day(s) L/A
3. Highest grade achieved:
E7
4. Performance evaluations:
See OMPF

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
         ARNG 860605 860825 HD
         (concurrent svc)



PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW

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

          a. The evidence of record shows that on 24 July 1997, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 7, AR 135-178 for misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs. He was advised of his rights. On 14 September 1997, within the 45 days of notification, the applicant acknowledged notification of the command’s intent to separate him for misconduct and requested counsel for consultation. On 22 September 1997 an administrative officer with the West Virginia Army National Guard acknowledged the applicant’s request for counsel, and forwarded it to the appropriate authority. On 7 January 1998, Orders 003-602, State of West Virginia, Adjutant General’s Department, Charleston, West Virginia, discharged the applicant from the Army National Guard and as a reserve of the Army, effective 6 January 1998. That order indicated that the applicant was discharged with a general discharge under the provisions of Paragraph 8-26(e)(2), NGR 600-200. The applicant was not available to sign his NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service). His NGB Form 22 indicates that he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 8, Paragraph 8-26e(2), NGR 600-200 by reason of acts or patterns of misconduct with a characterization of service of honorable. On 20 April 1998 the National Guard Bureau corrected the applicant’s NGB Form 22 to reflect a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.
         b. On 6 January 1998 the applicant was discharged. At the time of discharge he was credited with 13 years, 6 months, and 8 days of active service on the enlistment under review.

         c. The unit commander recommended the applicant be separated from the military because he tested positive for marijuana under the provisions of chapter 7, AR 135-178 for misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs. However, the separation documents (ie. Order and NGB From 22) indicate that the authority for separation is NGR 600-200, paragraph 8-26(e)(2). Paragraph 8-26(e)(2) cites the reason as failure of potential SMP member to be accepted in the ROTC advance course .

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 8-26q(2) of that regulation provides in pertinent part that individuals can be separated for acts or patterns of misconduct.
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 991117.
         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, DC on 12 January 2000

         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) The issue is accepted. The Board carefully examined the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review. There was a full consideration of all service including the infraction of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offense. While the Board does not condone the applicant’s misconduct, the Board found that the length and quality of his service mitigated his misconduct. In view of the foregoing, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of characterization of service to fully honorable. The Board determined that the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it.

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                       .

         ( )      Equitable.
         ( X )    Inequitable as to characterization. Change characterization to Honorable .
         ( )      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 3 2

         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       

                                 
MRS. WADE
Case Reviewing Official 

PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATION
SECTION A - DIRECTIVE

 Thru: Chief, National Guard Bureau Date: 14 January 2000
To: Adjutant General, State of West Virginia

 The Army Discharge Review Board, established under the provisions of Section 30, Public Law 346, 78th Congress, 22 June 1944 and codified as Title 10, United States Code, Section 1553, in the case of the applicant named in Part I recommends that the applicant be considered for a change of his discharge by the Adjutant General, State of West Virginia, with issuance of a new NGB Form 22, as follows:

( X )   Change characterization of discharge to Honorable .


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: 1999034613 INDEX NUMBERS: A9218
Date of Review: 000112 A0100
Character of Service: GD A9201
Date of Discharge: 980106
Authority: AR 635-200 C8
Reason: A6750
Results of Board Action/
Vote/Affirmation: HD 3 2-0 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 | 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 | CY2003 | 2003091628

    Original file (2003091628.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief.3. PART VII - BOARD ACTIONSECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified MR. RIVERA 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2003 | AR2003095106

    Original file (AR2003095106.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 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 | 1999029182

    Original file (1999029182.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Remarks: NONE SECTION B - Prior Service Data Other discharge(s): ServiceFromToType Discharge ARNG 940204 940513 HD PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEWSECTION A-ANALYST’S ASSESSMENT l. Facts and Circumstances: a. A-2: Counsel Issues: NONE B-l: Other Documents: NONE Finally, the Army Discharge Review Board cannot change the applicant’s RE code.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2003 | AR2003095524

    Original file (AR2003095524.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    However, the Board directs that the applicant’s discharge order from the Reserve of the Army, issued by the State of Arizona, be changed to reflect a characterization of service of honorable. Remarks: This action entails a change to the applicant’s discharge from the Reserve of the Army to reflect an Honorable characterization of service. SECTION B - CERTIFICATION Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW Lieutenant...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2001 | 2001051861

    Original file (2001051861.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    of Crime Control and Public Safety, Office of the Adjutant General, State of North Carolina, Orders 178-6; revoked Orders 164-213; dated 19 July 1996 and directed that a new NGB Form 55a (Report of Separation and Record of Service) be issued under the provisions of Chapter 8-27f, NGR 600-200, Narrative reason (Not Within Reasonable Commuting Distance), RE-Code 1 with a characterization of service of honorable. From the evidence submitted by the applicant in support of her request, it...

  • 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 | CY2000 | 2000050820

    Original file (2000050820.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    A-2: Counsel Issues: NONE B-l: Other Documents: NONE C-1: DD Form 149, dated 000815. In view of the above, the PAARNG is requested to change the applicant’s NGB Form 22A (Report of Separation and Record of Service) to reflect that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 8-27f, by reason of unsatisfactory participation. In view of the above, the PAARNG is requested to change the applicant’s NGB Form 22A (Report of Separation and Record of Service) to reflect that the...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY1998 | 1998014371

    Original file (1998014371.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Army Discharge Review Board is not empowered to return former service members to active duty. The Board may only change the characterization or reason for discharge. 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