Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080011263
Original file (AR20080011263.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/07/17	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and supporting 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: Not In File (NIF)
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 020831   Chapter: 8-26k    AR: NGR 600-200
Reason: Unsatisfactory Participation	   RE:     SPD: NA   Unit/Location: Det 1, Co C, 1-120 IN Bn, Lumberton, NC 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  17
Current ENL Date: 950120    Current ENL Term: 8 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	07 Yrs, 07Mos, 11Days ?????
Total Service:  		07 Yrs, 07Mos, 11Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	IADT 950613-950818/UNC
                                       IADT 960618-960910/UNC
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B10/Infantryman   GT: 94   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM-2, ASR, ARCAM-2, HSM 

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Fairmont, NC
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence shows the applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army.  The record indicates that on 16 July 2002, Department of Military Affairs, Raleigh, NC, Orders 15-81, discharged the applicant from the Army National Guard, effective 31 August 2002, with a general under honorable conditions discharge and assigned him to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement), St Louis, Missouri to complete his statutory obligation.  The record contains a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service).  It indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Paragraph 8-27k, 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." 
       

       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.  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 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 facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not contained in the available records.  On 16 July 2002, Department of Military Affairs, Raleigh, NC, Orders 15-81, discharged the applicant from the Army National Guard, effective 31 August 2002, with a general under honorable conditions discharge and assigned him to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement), St Louis, Missouri to complete his statutory obligation.  The record contains a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service).  It indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Paragraph 8-27k, 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."  Therefore, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service remains both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief.  Furthermore, if the applicant desires to appear before a personal appearance Board, the burden of proof remains with the former Soldier to provide the appropriate documents or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reason underlying the separation action, for the Board’s consideration.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 1 May 2009         Location: Washington, D.C.

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: NA
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080011263
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080019342

    Original file (AR20080019342.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The applicant’s NGB Form 22 shows the applicant, was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 8, Paragraph 8-27(d), NGR 600-200, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Therefore, the analyst recommends that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service remains both proper and...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060016053

    Original file (AR20060016053.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the State of Michigan Army National Guard. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E....

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080002251

    Original file (AR20080002251.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? 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. Therefore, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service remains both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090006542

    Original file (AR20090006542.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    It indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Paragraph 8-26K, 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." It indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Paragraph 8-26k, NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participant, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions, and a...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080009459

    Original file (AR20080009459.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    It indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Paragraph 8-26k, 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." It indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Paragraph 8-26k, NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participant, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions, and a...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080020021

    Original file (AR20080020021.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? It indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Paragraph 8-26k, 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". 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: NA ARMY...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090004050

    Original file (AR20090004050.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    It indicates that the applicant was discharged from the Massachusetts Army National Guard under the provisions of Paragraph 8-26k, NGR 600-200, for unsatisfactory participation, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions, and a reentry eligibility code of 3. The applicable Army regulation states that there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. Board Discussion,...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080020023

    Original file (AR20080020023.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The Applicant states, "I was under the impression that I was on the Inactive National Guard List. The NGB Form 22 indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 8-26k, NGR 600-200, for unsatisfactory participation, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions, and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of "3." Legal Basis for Separation: National Guard Regulation (NGR)...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060007421

    Original file (AR20060007421.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 070112 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080000169

    Original file (AR20080000169.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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. 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 characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s...