Applicant Name: ?????

Application Receipt Date: 070713	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents submitted by the applicant.

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: 050401   
Chapter: 8-26d    AR: NGR-600-200
Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance
RE:     SPD: NA
Unit/Location: E Co, 504th MSB, Pomona, CA 

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
Year/Month:  7909  
HOR City, State: Yucaipa, CA
Current ENL Date: 040517    Current ENL Term: 2 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 00  Yrs, 10 Mos, 15 Days ?????
Total Service:  08  Yrs, 11 Mos, 09 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: USAR-970313-970812N/A
                                      AD-970812-980512/HD
                                      USARCG-851213-030803/NA
                                      USAR-030804-040516/NA
Highest Grade: E-4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: None   GT: NIF   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      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 and as a Reserve of the Army.  However, the record does contain a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), which was not authenticated by the applicant’s signature.  It indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Paragraph 8-26d, NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance, with a characterization of service of general,under honorable conditions, with a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of "3."  The evidence of record shows that on 12 April 2005, Joint Forces Headquarters, California Army National Guard, Sacramento, CA, Orders 102-1044, discharged the applicant from the Army National Guard and as a Reserve of the Army, effective date:  1 April 2005, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

      b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
      National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 and Army Regulation 135-178 govern procedures covering enlisted personnel of the Army National Guard.  Chapter 8-26d of NGR 600-200 covers, in pertinent part, discharge and separation of enlisted personnel Army Regulation 135-178 provides for the separation of members of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve when it is determined that a service member is unqualified for further military service by reason of unsatisfactory performance.  The service of a member separated under this provision of Army Regulation 135-178 will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by his or her military record.
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      

      c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
      After a careful review of all the applicant’s available records during the period of enlistment under review, the issues and documents he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  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 and as 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 8-26d, NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. In the absence of information 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, the analyst noted the applicant’s issue; however, at the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “3.”  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 and recommends to the Board to deny relief. 

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 16 July 2008              
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 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 and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.  
























								        
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: 18 July 2008
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070009669
______________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 5 pages