Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/12/09	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: NIF
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 040727   Chapter: 8-26(g)    AR: NGR 600-200
Reason: Fraudulent Entry	   RE:     SPD: NIF   Unit/Location: B Btry, 265 AD Bn, Ft. Myers, FL 

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:  18
Current ENL Date: 020904    Current ENL Term: 6 Years  1 month, 6 days
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 10 Mos, 24 Days ?????
Total Service:  		01 Yrs, 10 Mos, 24 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	IADT  021121-030425/UNC
Highest Grade: E2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 14S / Avenger Crewmember   GT: NIF   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Naples, FL
Post Service Accomplishments: Applicant states he has passed every class given to him at a community college.

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 Florida Army National Guard and the United States Army Reserve.  The record indicates that on 27 July 2004, Department of the Army and the Air Force, Florida National Guard, Office of the Adjutant General, St. Augustine, Florida, Orders P209-018, discharged the Applicant from the Army National Guard and the United States Army Reserve, effective 27 July 2004, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
       In his application, the Applicant indicates he was discharged for not listing on his enlistment contract that he "had violated probation and got arrested for underage drinking."

       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.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 7, paragraph 7-17, of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a fraudulent entry is the procurement of an enlistment, reenlistment, or period of active service through any deliberate material misrepresentation, omission, or concealment of information which, if known and considered by the Army at the time of enlistment or reenlistment, might have resulted in rejection.  This includes all disqualifying information requiring a waiver.  A Soldier who concealed his or her conviction by civil court of a felonious offense normally will not be considered for retention.  Soldiers separated under this chapter may be awarded an honorable discharge, or a general discharge, or a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  If in an entry level status the characterization will be uncharacterized.  

       c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
       After a careful review of the Applicant’s military records, and the issue submitted with the application as to the propriety of the discharge, the analyst determined that the Applicant’s available record of service during the period under review as an Army National Guardsman and U.S. Army Reserve Soldier is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge.  However, the Applicant’s record does contain a properly constituted Order which was authenticated by the appropriate military authority.  This document identifies the characterization of the discharge 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 Applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the Applicant’s service mitigated the type of discharge he received from the U.S. Army Reserve. The analyst noted the Applicant's issue, however,  eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the Applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.  Additionally, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  Further, the analyst acknowledges the Applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted the many accomplishments outlined with the application, however, 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 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: 16 September 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: No Change
Other: No Change										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: No Change
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090000623
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages