Application Receipt Date: 060821	

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: 930804   
Chapter: 8-26q    AR: NGR 600-200
Reason: Acts or Patterns of Misconduct
RE:     SPD: NA
Unit/Location: Detachment 1, HHC 1st Battalion, 246th Armor, Three Rivers, MI 49093-0248 

Time Lost: NIF

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

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  700113  
Current ENL Date: 920302    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  5 Months
Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 05 Mos, 03 Days ?????
Total Service:  05  Yrs, 00 Mos, 15 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: RA-880720-920301/HD
Highest Grade: E4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 19D10 Cavalry Scout   GT: 101   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany/SouthWest Asia   Combat: Saudi Arabia (901220-910429)
Decorations/Awards: AAM, NDSM, SWASM w/2 BSS, ASR, OSR, ALB
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: 
Current Address: 
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant claims he has been employed by the Florida Department of Corrections for nine years and has never received any disciplinary action.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge from the State of Michigan Army National Guard 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.  This document indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Paragraph 8-26q, NGR 600-200, by reason of acts or patterns of misconduct with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions, with a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of  "3."  The evidence of record further shows that on 3 August 1993, State of Michigan, Department Of Military Affairs, Lansing, MI, 0rders 151-028, discharged the applicant from the Army National Guard and as a Reserve of the Army, effective date:  4 August 1993, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank. 

      b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
      National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 and Army Regulation 135-178 govern procedures for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.  Chapter 8 of NGR 600-200 covers, in pertinent part, reasons for discharge and separation of enlisted personnel from the State Army National Guard and as a Reserve of the Army.  The regulation defines misconduct by reason of one or more of the following:  minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, abuse of illegal drugs, and conviction by civil authorities.
      
      
      

      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 issue and documents he submitted, the analyst recommends that 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 Michigan Army National Guard and as a Reserve of  the Army.  However, the available records does 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 service 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, Paragraph 8-26q, NGR 600-200, by reason of acts or patterns of misconduct, 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.  Barring 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.  Additionally, if the applicant desires to reenlist, he should contact the local recruiter to determine his eligibility to reenlist.  Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes.  In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined that 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: 29 August 2007              
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 1    No change 4   - Character
		 			      Change 0    No change 5   - 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 discharge was both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief.





















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: NA
RE Code:  
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes  Grade: None

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

MARK E. COLLINS
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board

Official: 


CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON			DATE: 20 September 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060012026

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 6 of 6 pages