Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2003 | 2003090510
Original file (2003090510.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): 930901

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: 8 Years ASR
b. Entry date: 910409
c. Age: 20 Years DOB: 700829
d. Educational level: HS Grad
e. Aptitude area score:
          GT: 84 3. Highest grade achieved:
f. Length of Service: E4
2 Year(s) 2 Month(s) 12 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
NONE

Other discharge(s):

          Service   From      To        Type Discharge





PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW

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

          a. The evidence of record shows that on 9 April 1991, the applicant enlisted in the Texas Army National Guard (TXARNG) for a period of 8 years. On 9 June 1993, the applicant was notified that he had accrued 36 periods of absence in violation of Chapter 13, AR 135-91, that he was declared an unsatisfactory participant, and would be separated from the TXARNG and transferred to the Army Reserve Control Group for completion of his statutory obligation. On 12 August 1993, State of Texas, Adjutant General’s Department, Austin, TX, Orders 158-178 discharged the applicant from the TXARNG and transferred him to the USAR Control Group, effective 1 September 1993. 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.

         b. On 1 September 1993, the applicant was discharged. At the time of discharge, the applicant had completed 2 years, 2 months, and 12 days of active military service in the period under review.

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 030506.
         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 17 December 2003 .

         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 applicant has not submitted an issue of equity and the ADRB has not otherwise relied upon an issue of equity to change the discharge. The major factors upon which the discharge was based are set forth in Parts III and IV of this decisional document.
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:


SPURGEON A. MOORE
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge
Review Board

Official:




MARY E. SHAW
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: 2003090510 INDEX NUMBERS: A9217
Date of Review: 031217 A9500
Character of Service: GD A0100
Date of Discharge: 930901
Authority: NGR 600-200 C8
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 | 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 | CY2000 | 2000045741

    Original file (2000045741.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A-2: Counsel Issues: NONE B-l: Other Documents: NONE C-1: DD Form 149, dated 000703. 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:WILSON A. SHATZER Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board EXHIBITS: A - Application for review of discharge C - Other B - Material submitted...

  • 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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