Application Receipt Date: 061214	

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: 950425   
Chapter:  8-26q    AR: NGR 600-200
Reason: Misconduct-Unsatisfactory Participant
RE:     SPD: NA
Unit/Location: E Company 103rd Engineer Battalion, Philadelphia, PA 19104-2839 

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:  691005  
Current ENL Date: 931103    Current ENL Term: 5 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 05 Mos, 23 Days ?????
Total Service:  04 Yrs, 05 Mos, 22 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: ARNG-900817-901118/NA
                                      ADT-901119-910325/UNC
                                      ARNG-910326-930816/HD
                                      USARCG-930817-931102/NA
Highest Grade: E3
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92A10 Automated Logistics Spec/77F10 Petroleum Supply Spec   GT: 101   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: 
Current Address: 
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed

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 Pennsylvania 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 8-26q, NGR 600-200, by reason of misconduct-unsatisfactory participant, with a characterization of service under other than honorable conditions, and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of "4."  On 21 April 1995, the Common Wealth Of Pennsylvania, Department Of Military Affairs, The Adjutant General, Annville, PA, Orders 077-034, discharged the applicant from the Army National Guard and as a Reserve of the Army, effective date:  25 April 1995, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.
      
      The analyst noted that on the applicant's NGB Form 22, item 23, Authority and Reason is annotated as "NGR 600-200, Paragraph 8-26q", should read as "NGR 600-200, Paragraph 8-27f, misconduct-unsatisfactory participation."   

      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 8-26k 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 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  Pennsylvania Army National Guard and a Reserve of  the Army.  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 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 8-27f, NGR 600-200, by reason of misconduct-unsatisfactory participant, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions, and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of  "4."  The analyst noted the applicant’s contentions; however, the evidence was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review.  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.  Furthermore, at the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “4.”  An RE code of “4” can not be waived and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment.  Therefore, the analyst determined that 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: 6 August 2008              
Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: No

Witnesses/Observers: No 

Exhibits Submitted: No

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 0    No change 5   - 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, hearing his testimony, 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: 

MARY E. SHAW				DATE: 17 August 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060017231

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 4 of 4 pages