Applicant Name:  

Application Receipt Date: 2008/08/12	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See 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: Not In File (NIF)
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 080120   Chapter: NIF    AR: 135-178
Reason: NIF	   RE:     SPD: NA   Unit/Location: HSC, 411th Eng Bn, Honolulu, HI 

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:  28
Current ENL Date: 060713    Current ENL Term: NIF Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 06Mos, 07Days ?????
Total Service:  		06 Yrs, 01Mos, 15Days Includes Inactive Service
Previous Discharges: 	RA 010109-050816/HD
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 91W10/Health Care Spc   GT: NIF   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: SWA   Combat: Afghanistan (040501-050428)
Decorations/Awards: BSM, ARCOM-2, AAM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, AGCM, NDSM, ASR, OSR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Waipahu, HI
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 Reserve.  The record indicates that on 26 December 2007, Department of the Army, 9th Regional Readiness Command, Orders 07-360-00019, discharged the applicant from the Army Reserve, effective 20 January 2008, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The record contains a properly constituted Order which does not indicate the reason for separation.  

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 135-78 govern procedures covering enlisted personnel management of the Army Reserve.  Chapter 8 of NGR 600-200 covers, in pertinent part, reasons for discharge and separation of enlisted personnel from the USAR.  Paragraph 13-1 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 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 specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the U.S. Army Reserve.  However, the record does contain a properly constituted Order which indicates the characterization of the service and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process.  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 contentions; however, the evidence was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review.  Furthermore, the record contains Orders C-07-624946 dated 27 July 2006, that show that the applicant transferred voluntarily from the USAR Control Group to the 411th Engineer Battalion, Honolulu, HI.  This document contradicts the applicant’s assertion that he was placed in an engineer unit without his knowledge.  Additionally, 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 if appropriate, are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes.  Finally, the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) does not contain all the specific documents that would indicate the reason for the separation action from the United States Army Reserve.    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 reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board’s consideration.  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.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 20 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 inequitable based on the applicant’s length and quality of his service, his combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge in that the evidence indicates that the applicant was never in a drilling unit, and as a result it is inequitable.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority.  This action entails restoration of grade to E-4/SPC.









        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 5    No change 0
Reason -     Change 5    No change 0
(Board member names available upon request)
								         EDGAR J. YANGER			 
								         Colonel, U.S. Army
X.  Board Action Directed

Other: TO: ARBA Support Division-St Louis      Date: 21 May 2009

     The Army Discharge Review Board, established under the provisions of Section 30, Public Law 346, 78th Congress, 22 June 1944 and codified as Title 10, United States Code, Section 1553, in the case of the applicant named in Part I directs that the ARBA Support Division-St Louis issue a new discharge order to the applicant which reflects the following directed changes:

           ( X  )	Change characterization of discharge to Honorable
           ( X  )	Restoration of grade to E-4/SPC
           ( X  )        RE Code: 1
           ( X  )        Change Reason to:   Secretarial Authority under Provision of Chapter 5, AR 635-200.

ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080012831
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages