Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/04/02	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 149 and attached documents 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: NIF
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 020828   Chapter: 8-26k     AR: NGR 600-2000
Reason: Unsatisfactory Participation	   RE:     SPD: NA   Unit/Location: 1710th Trans Co (-Det 1), Manassas, 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:  23
Current ENL Date: 000203    Current ENL Term: 6 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 06Mos, 26Days ?????
Total Service:  		06 Yrs, 00Mos, 07Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	USAR-960822-961016/NA
                                       RA-961017-990319/HD
                                       USARCG-990320-000202
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 88M10 Motor Transport Operator   GT: 104   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM (Prior Service), ARCAM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Toledo, OH
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed

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 Army National Guard  State of Virginia and and assignment to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) 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 8-26(k), 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 22 August  2002, the Departments of the Army and the Air Force, Joint Forces Headquarters, Office of the Adjutant General of Viginia, Virginia Army National Guard, Blackstone, VA, Orders 234-017, discharged the applicant from the Army National Guard and assigned her to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement), effective date:  28 August 2002, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

       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 8-26(k) 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, the issues and documents she 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 her discharge from the Army National Guard State of Virginia  and assignment to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).  However, the available records 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.  The evidence of record further shows that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 8, paragraph 8-26(k), NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participation with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  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, the analyst note the applicant's issue in reference to her restoration of rank to E-4; however, at the time of the applicant's disharge from the Army National Guard State of Virginia, her NGB Form 22 shows her in the rank/pay grade of SPC/E-4.  Further, at the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “3,” a request for a change to the  reentry eligibility (RE) code does not fall within the purview of this Board.  The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), utilizing DD Form 149 regarding this matter.  An application for that Board is enclosed. In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined that reentry eligibility (RE) code, 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: 30 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 AR20080006447
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages