Applicant Name:  

Application Receipt Date: 2008/11/10	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The Applicant states, "I`m trying to obtain employment with the Michigan Department of Corrections I was young,bullheaded,and just stupid at the time of my discharge I have regreted my actions for many years and wish to change my discharge at the time of my discharge I was trying to tell my Commander I did not have a problem with drugs it was a one time thing it would never happen again I was very drunk at a party (I had some personal problems)I dont remember smokeing anything maybe I did or didn`t I dont know but I felt ashamed and that people were just out to get me instead of helping me I was disapointed in my self and my unit so I just gave up".

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: 	NIF   Date: NIF
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 950411   Chapter: 8-26q(3)     AR: NGR 600-200
Reason: Acts or Patterns of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: NA   Unit/Location: HHC 2/238th AVN, Grand Ledge, MI 

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:  21
Current ENL Date: 891109    Current ENL Term: 8 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	5 Yrs, 05Mos, 03Days ?????
Total Service:  		5 Yrs, 05Mos, 03Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	IADT 900918-910211/UNC
Highest Grade: E4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 31U10/Combat Signaler   GT: 101   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR, NDSM, ARCAM

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Nashville, MI
Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted

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 her discharge from the Army National Guard of the State of Michigan.  The record indicates that on 18 April 1995, State of Michigan, Department of Military Affairs, Lansing, Michigan Orders 087-010, discharged the applicant from the Army National Guard, and as a Reserve of the Army effective 11 April 1995, with a general discharge.  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 8-26Q, NGR 600-200, by reason of acts or patterns of misconduct, with a characterization of service of general, and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of "3." 

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 and Army Regulation 135-78 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 8-26q (3) of that regulation provides in pertinent part that individuals can be separated for misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs.

       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 issue 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 State of Michigan Army National Guard and a Reserve of the Army.  However, the record does contain a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), which indicates that the applicant was unavailable for signature.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the service and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 8, paragraph 8-26q, NGR 600-200, by reason of acts or patterns of misconduct with a characterization of service of general.  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, at the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “3.”  If the applicant desires to reenlist, she should contact the local recruiter to determine her eligibility to reenlist.  Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes.  Furthermore, the analyst determined that 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.    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: 21 August 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: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080018071
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages