Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2000 | 2000045741
Original file (2000045741.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
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): 920207

3. Authority for separation:

         a. Regulation: Chapter 8-27g, 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:
                            NDSM
a. Period entered for: 6 Years (6 years ext.) ASR
b. Entry date: 801119 (861107) OSR
c. Age: 19 Years DOB: 610922
d. Educational level: HS Grad
e. Aptitude area score:
          GT: 90 3. Highest grade achieved:
f. Length of Service: E4
11 Year(s) 2 Month(s) 19 Day(s)

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
         ADT      810126   810512   Honorable Release
         ADT      910103   910619   Honorable Release

         (Concurrent Service)



PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW

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

         a. Evidence of record shows that on 25 November 1991, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation from the D.C. Army National Guard and the Reserve of the Army under the provisions of AR 135-178, by reason of misconduct. He was advised on his rights. The evidence also shows that the applicant did not respond to this notification. On 27 January 1992 the applicant received notification that he was being charged with 40 unexcused absences from training within a one-year period. Subsequent to this notification, the unit commander recommended separation from the (DCANG) under the provisions of NGR 600-200, Chapter 8-27g. by reason of unsatisfactory participation. On 29 February 1992, Headquarters, District of Columbia National Guard/hlh, Washington, DC Orders 032-003 discharged the applicant from the DCANG with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 16 March 1993, the applicant was discharged from the Army Ready Reserve with an honorable discharge.

         b. On 7 February 1992, the applicant was discharged and transferred to the USAR Control Group (IRR). At the time of discharge, the applicant had 11 years, 2 months, and 19 days, service on his current enlistment under review.

2. Legal/Regulatory Basis for Separation Action : National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 and Army Regulation 135-91 governs 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 000703.
         A-2: Counsel Issues: NONE
         B-l: Other Documents: NONE
         C-1: DD Form 149, dated 000703.

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:
         ( ) Records review ( X ) Hearing

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

         c. Review/hearing location and date: Washington, DC on 4 December 2000 .

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

          e. Applicant testified: ( X ) Yes ( ) No
        
         f. Counsel presentation: ( X ) Yes ( ) No
        
         g. Witness(es) testified: ( ) Yes ( X ) No
        
2. Exhibit(s) submitted at hearing: new issues (1) – (3) on DD Form 293;
19 pages of new documents.

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 carefully examined the applicant’s available records for the period of enlistment under review and heard his testimony. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was notified of his impending separation from the D.C. Army National Guard by reason of unsatisfactory participation, after being charged with at least 40 unexcused absences within a training year. The applicant apparently made no attempts to contact his unit, submit a statement in his own behalf, or to seek legal counsel. Further, the applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated his unsatisfactory duty performance. The applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. The Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief.
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       

                                 
Ms. McKim-Spilker
Case Reviewing Official 

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

Approval Authority:


WILSON A. SHATZER
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge
Review Board

Official:




EARNEST C. SMITH, JR.
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: 2000045741 INDEX NUMBERS: A9217
Date of Review: 001204 A9235
Character of Service: GD A9317
Date of Discharge: 920207 A9319
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 | 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 | 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

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2002 | 2002066275

    Original file (2002066275.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the Board presumed Government regularity in the discharge process. The evidence of record shows the applicant, in absentia, was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 8, Paragraph 8-27g, NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participation with...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2003 | AR2003093354

    Original file (AR2003093354.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Remarks: NONE SECTION B - Prior Service Data NONE Other discharge(s): Service From To Type Discharge PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW SECTION A-ANALYST’S ASSESSMENT l. Facts and Circumstances: a. The Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and recommended not to change it. Minority views: NONE PART VII - BOARD ACTION SECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified Ms. McKim-Spilker Case Reviewing Official PART VIII -...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2004 | AR20040002963

    Original file (AR20040002963.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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. Minority views: NONE PART VII - BOARD ACTION SECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified MR. RIVERA Case Reviewing Official PART VIII -...

  • 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 | CY2003 | AR2003091442

    Original file (AR2003091442.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Remarks: NONE SECTION B - Prior Service Data Other discharge(s): Service From To Type Discharge USAR 880715 881231 NA PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW SECTION A-ANALYST’S ASSESSMENT l. Facts and Circumstances: a. His NGB Form 22 indicates that he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 8-27g, NGR 600-200, as an unsatisfactory participant, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Minority views: NONE PART VII - BOARD ACTION SECTION B - Verification and...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2003 | 2003085782

    Original file (2003085782.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The record contains a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Department of the Army and the Air Force National Guard Bureau 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 Thru: Chief, National Guard Bureau Date: 10 October 2003 To: Adjutant General, State of MissouriThe Army Discharge Review Board,...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2003 | 2003084567

    Original file (2003084567.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 15 May 1990, the applicant was discharged. 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

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2000 | 2000040584

    Original file (2000040584.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s record also contains an NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), which indicates, that she was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 8, Paragraph 8-27g, NGR 600-200 by reason of unsatisfactory participation with an honorable characterization of service. 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...