Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 071031	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: To whom it my concern.
 I am asking for a review on my discharge. I do not deseve it as I did stop drilling, and all I can say is that I was young and insecure with my life at the time.  Since then I am married stable and looking to get into law enforcement and this type of discharge would hinder my chances. I would also like to say that looking back on my time in the service was some of the best times I have had.  I am not going to sit here and lie or b.s. anyone around.  I am just asking you to please chage my status as I am ashamed and sorry for not fullfilling my obligation to the army and my former military family.  I just hope you can see that when I was drilling I was a real good Soldier based on my records.  Thanks for looking at my appeal.

II.  Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed?	     
Tender Offer:   NA

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Discharge Under Review
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: 	   Date: NIF
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 990716   Chapter: 8-27(f)    AR: NGR 600-200
Reason: Unsatisfactory Participation	   RE:     SPD: NA   Unit/Location: C Co, 102nd IN Bn, Bristol, CT 

Time Lost: NIF

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

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  18
Current ENL Date: 930826    Current ENL Term: 8 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	00 Yrs, 03Mos, 26Days ?????
Total Service:  		06 Yrs, 05Mos, 00Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	ADT-931109-940304/HD
                                          (Concurrent Service)

Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B10 Infantryman   GT: 98   EDU: GED Cert   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ARCAM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Plainville, CT
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant enlisted in Connecticut Army National Guard on 071130 for one year in the grade of PFC/E-3.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The specific facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge from the State of Connecticut 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 was not authenticated by the applicant's signature.  It indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Paragraph 8-27f, NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participation with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) Code of " 3."  On 29 November 2007, State of Connecticut, Military Department, Office of the Adjutant General, Hartford, CT, Orders 335-057, discharged the applicant from the Army National Guard, effective date:  29 November 2007, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 
       
       The applicant was administratively reduced from E-4 to E-3 for inefficiency effective date 980807.  Also, the applicant was reduced from E-3 to E-1 effective date 990716, however, this order was revoked on 071129.
       
       The analyst noted that several handwriiten corrections were made on the applicant's discharge order, the characterization of service was changed from "under other than honorable conditions" to "general, under honorable conditions," the RE code from RE "4" to RE "3" and the separation authority from "paragraph 8-26e(2) to "8-27f."  Subsequently, a NGB Form 22A was issued 071130 correcting the aforementioned items.

       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.  Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.   

       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 and the issues 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 Connecticut Army National Guard and assignment to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training).  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 8-27(f), NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participation with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) Code of " 3."  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.  Furhermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue and determined that the he met entrance qualification standards to include age.  There is no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.  Additionally, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  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: 1 October 2008         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: NA


VIII.  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. 
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 1    No change 4
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)
								         EDGAR J. YANGER			 
								         Colonel, U.S. Army
								         President, Army Discharge Review Board
Issue a new DD Form 214  					
Change Characterization to: 			         
Change Reason to: No Change
Other: NA										
RE Code: 									 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: None
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070015239
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 3 pages