Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/08/25	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The Applicant states in effect:  "On November 2005, I relocated to Yuma, Arizona due to my promotion with my employer.  I notified my supervisor about my relocation to Arizona and he was okay with it.  He notified me that I could miss drills for the next 90 days in order to find on other unit near my new home town.  I contacted one unit in San Diego California and was not successful on being part of that unit because of my physical profile. 
I communicated with my supervisor every month to keep him updated of my situation.  Since I was not able to find a unit within 90 days I offer to travel to Las Cruces, NM for drills with the unit financial support.  I was told that the unit did not have any funds and were not able to help me financially for my travel.  Since they could not help me financially I told them that it could not attend drills and my supervisor told me that it was okay.  I stayed in contact with my supervisor from Nov 2005 until July 2006.  On 07 June, 2006 I received a certified letter dated 10 May, 2006 stating that the Army had initiated action to separate me from the selected services.  The letter stated that they initiated separation due to failing to attend a scheduled AT; which I was not notified about. I also stated that a certified mail notice was sent to my home and it was refused, unclaimed, or undelivered,  and last they stated that I failed to notify my command of my change of address.  The reason I missed the AT training was because I was notified a day after my actual reporting date.  I was notified via fax 05 April, 2006 that I had orders to report for AT training in el Paso, Texas on 04 April, 2006 how is that realistic.  As soon as I opened the Certify letter I contacted my immediate supervisor at the 281th unit to ask what was going on and he had no clue that the unit started action to separate me from the service.  Then I contacted the legal liaison officer. He told me that he was getting out the same time I emailed him but that another captain was taking over the claim.  I communicated with him via phone and emailed frequently and he assure me that everything was going to be okay.  I perform my duties to the fullest and was never discipline for any misconduct during my time in the military.  I never received disciplinary action nor bad performance reviews.  I did not join the military to be discharge.  I came into the military in a critical time and wanted to serve proudly.  All I ask if for you to look at all the facts and to be fair.  My unit fail to communicate with me not me with them."  He requests an upgrade to GD and provides 8 supporting documents for the Board's consideration.

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: 060809   Chapter: 13-1    AR: 135-178
Reason: Unsatisfactory Participation	   RE:     SPD: NIF   Unit/Location: 281st TC Co, Las Cruces, NM 

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:  29
Current ENL Date: 031001    Current ENL Term: 8 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 10Mos, 08Days ?????
Total Service:  		02 Yrs, 10Mos, 08Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92A10/Autom Log Spc   GT: NIF   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Yuma, AZ
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 11 August 2006, DA HQS, 90th Regional Readiness Command, North Little Rock, AR, discharged the applicant from the Army Reserve, effective 9 August 2006, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The record contains a properly constituted Order as described above.  It indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Paragraph 13-1, AR 135-178, by reason of unsatisfactory participation, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.   

       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 records for the period of enlistment under review, and the issue and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  On 11 August 2006, DA HQS, 90th Regional Readiness Command, North Little Rock, AR, discharged the applicant from the Army Reserve, effective 9 August 2006, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  All the facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not contained in the available records and the analyst presumed government regularity in the discharge process.  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: 26 March 2009         Location: Dallas, TX

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
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 AR20080013808
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages