Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/03/10	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See enclosed DD Form 293 submitted by the applicant.

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: 960415
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 960506   Chapter: 8-27x      AR: NGR 600-200
Reason: Interstate Transfer, Failed to Report	   RE:     SPD: NA   Unit/Location: B Btry, 2-111 FA Bn, Norfolk, VA 

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:  25
Current ENL Date: 940209    Current ENL Term: 03 Years  06 Mos, 03 Days 
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 02Mos, 28Days ?????
Total Service:  		06 Yrs, 08Mos, 23Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	USAR-890814-890823/NA
                                       IADT-890824-891201/UNC
                                       USAR-891202-940208/NA
                                          (Concurrent Service)
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 13B10 Cannon Crewmember   GT: 82   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ARCAM, NDSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  St. Paul, MN
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 15 April 1996, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 6 , AR 135-178, paragraph 6-3e and NGR 600-200, Chapter 8-27x, by reason of failure to report later than 90 days after the established interstate transfer date with an uncharacterized discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The unit commander suspended action for 45 days to give the applicant an opportunity to exercise his rights.  The applicant failed to respond within 30 calendar days to exercise those rights and priviliges afforded him, which constituted a waiver of his rights.  The applicant’s record is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to the discharge from the Army National Guard State of Virginia.  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.  That NGB Form 22 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 8-27x, NGR 600-200, by reason of failure to report to the gaining state upon interstate transfer, with service uncharacterized, and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) Code of  "3."  On 31 May 1996, Departments of the Army and the Air Force, Office of the Adjutant General, Virginia National Guard, Richmond, VA, Orders 105-279, discharged the applicant from the Army National Guard and assigned him to the United States Army Reserve (Annual Training), effective date:  6 May1996, with service uncharacterized.
       
       The analyst noted that the unit commander cited NGR 600-200, Chapter 8-26o, in his notification letter to the applicant, however, the NGB Form 22, block 23, Authority and Reason cites NGR 600-200, paragraph 8-27x, by reason of failure to report later than 90 days after the established interstate transfer date. 

       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 8-27x of that regulation provides in pertinent part that individuals can be transferred between ARNG units within a state.  They may also be reassigned between states using the ARNG Interstate Transfer System.  When a Soldier does not report by the established date, the gaining unit will report this to the State MPMO.  Soldiers separated under this chapter will be awarded an uncharacterized separation of service.

       c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
       After a careful review of all the applicant’s available records for the period of enlistment under review and the issue 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 complete facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the  Army National Guard State of Virginia and his reassignment to the United States Army Reserve (AT).  However, the applicant’s 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 discharge and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process.  That NGB Form 22 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Paragraph 8-27x, NGR 600-200, by reason of failure to report later than 90 days after the established interstate transfer date, with service uncharacterized.  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 issue; however, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.  In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of 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: 14 January 2009         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 0    No change 5
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)
								         EDGAR J. YANGER			 
								         Colonel, U.S. Army
X.  Board Action Directed					         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 AR20080003797
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages