Application Receipt Date: 060524	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

I.  Applicant Request
Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents.

II.  Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed?  
Yes    No        Tender Offer:   ?????

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Original Character of Discharge
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge:    Date: NIF
Discharge Received:     Date: 030808   
Chapter: 8-26e, 8-26j, and 8-26k      AR: NGR 600-200
Reason: Unsatisfactory Participation
RE:     SPD: NA
Unit/Location: CO C 1st Bn 102nd Inf Bristol, CT 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF

Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  790110  
Current ENL Date: 010703    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  9 months 2 days
Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 10 Mos, 28 Days ?????
Total Service:  05 Yrs, 10 Mos, 28 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: RA 970911-010910/HD
Highest Grade: E4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B10 Infantryman   GT: 116   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Bosnia (990820-000316)   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AFEM, ASR, NM (KOSO), EIB
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: 
Current Address: 
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant claims he graduated from the University Of Connecticut last spring, and is currently working on the Senate Committee for Veteran's Affairs.  He concludes he served veterans as a VA Representative thoughout college.  

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not contained in the available records.  However,the record does contain a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), which the applicant was unavailable for signature.  It indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Paragraphs 8-26e, 8-26j, and 8-26k, NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participation, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions, and a Reenlistment Eligibility Code of RE 4.  Evidence of record shows that on 8 August 2003, orders 157-017, State Of Connecticut, Military Department, Office Of The Adjutant General, Hartford, CT, discharged the applicant from the Army National Guard, effective: 8 August 2003, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge and reassigned him to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training), St. Louis, Missouri to complete his statutory  obligation.      

      b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
           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.  Paragraphs 8-26e(2), 8-26j(8), and 8-26k 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.



      c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
           After a careful review of all the applicant’s available military records for the period of enlistment under review, the issues and documents he submitted, the analyst recommends relief be denied in this case.  The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the State of Connecticut Army National Guard and transfer to the ARPERCEN Control Group (Annual Training).  However, the available records contain a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), which the applicant was unavailable for signature.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 8, Paragraphs 8-26e(2), 8-26j(8), and 8-26k, NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participation, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.   The analyst noted the applicant’s contentions; however, the applicant has provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.  In the absence of corroborated evidence to the contrary, the analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable.


VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 070108              
Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: NA




VIII.  Board Decision
The discharge was:			Proper	 	Improper	
				                 	Equitable	 	Inequitable	

The characterization of service was:   Proper	 	Improper	
				                 	Equitable	 	Inequitable	

The narrative reasons were: 	       	Equitable	 	Inequitable	

DRB voting record:  		      	Change     No change    (Character)
		 			       	Change     No change    (Reason)
					      (Board member names available upon request)

IX.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable.  The Board found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, circumstances surrounding the discharge and his post service accomplishments mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  However, the Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it.     
















Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Kenneth McFarley, Examiner									        
X.  Board Action Directed
No Change 
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to:    
Change Reason to: None
Other: Thru:  Chief, National Guard Bureau            Date:  8 January 2007
To:  Adjutant General, State of Connecticut 

            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 Connecticut , with issuance of a new NGB Form 22, as follows:
                  
           ( X )	Change characterization of discharge to General, Under Honorable                .                     Conditions.
RE Code:  
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes  Grade: None

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

ROBERT L. HOUSE
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board

Official: 


MARY E. SHAW				DATE: 070112
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060007421

Applicant Name:  Mr.      
______________________________________________________________________


Page 5 of 5 pages