Application Receipt Date: 060905	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached document.

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: 991001   
Chapter: 8-27f    AR: NGR 600-2000
Reason: Unsatisfactory Participant
RE:     SPD: NA
Unit/Location: Company D, 4th Battalion, 160th Infantry, Redlands, CA 92501-2198 

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:  721004  
Current ENL Date: 910308    Current ENL Term: 8 Years  The applicant extended for 3 years (970307).
Current ENL Service: 08  Yrs, 06 Mos, 24 Days ?????
Total Service:  08  Yrs, 10 Mos, 06 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: IADT-910319-910621/NA
                                      AD-920501-920509/HD
Highest Grade: E4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B10 Infantryman   GT: 101   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR, ARCAM (2), CADAR, 
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: 
Current Address: 
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states he received a Bachelor of Science degree in organizational management from California Baptist University. 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The facts and circumstances leading to the applicant’s discharge from the State of California 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.  It indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Paragraph 8-27f, NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participant, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions, and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of "3."  The evidence of record further shows that, On 1 December 1999, State Of California, Office Of The Adjutant General, Sacramento, CA, Orders 335-035, discharged the applicant from the Army National Guard and assigned him to the United States Army Reserve Control Group (Annual Training) to complete his statutory obligation, effective date:  1 October 1999.     

      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.  Paragraph 8-27(f) 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 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 California Army National Guard.  However, Orders 325-035, discharged the applicant from the Army National Guard under the provisions of Chapter 8-27f, NGR 600-200, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions, and a reentry eligibility (RE) code of "3."  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process.  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. The analyst noted the applicant’s contentions; however, the evidence was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review.  The analyst congratulates the applicant on his work achievements since departing the Army.  However, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  Therefore, the narrative 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: 3 October 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 2    No change 3   - 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 and voted 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: 12 October 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060012652

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 5 of 5 pages