Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/01/22	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached 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: NIF
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 010303   Chapter: 8-26k      AR: NGR 600-200
Reason: Unsatisfactory Participation	   RE:     SPD: NA   Unit/Location: 972d MP Company, Melrose, MA 

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:  27
Current ENL Date: 980812    Current ENL Term: 8 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	2 Yrs, 6Mos, 22Days ?????
Total Service:  		2 Yrs, 6Mos, 22Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	IADT-980916-990129/HD
Highest Grade: E4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 95B10/Military Police   GT: 123   EDU: Coll Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states he is employed as a truck driver and studied computers and pre-nursing at the 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 the discharge from the Army National Guard.  However, the record does contain a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), which was not authenicated by the applicant.  It indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Paragraph 8-26k, NGB 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participation, with a characterization of service of general and a reentry eligibility code (RE) code of "3," and assigned him to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training), St. Louis, Missouri to complete his statutory obligation.
       
       
       

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 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, the issue and documents 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.  However, the record contains a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service).  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.  Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue and determined that the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  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.  The analyst having examined all the circumstances determined that the applicant's single incident of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  This single incident of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  Additionally, 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.  Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  Additionally, the analyst acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted the many accomplishments outlined with the application and in the documents with the application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined that the characterization of service and reason for discharge 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: 7 December 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: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090004050
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 3 of 3 pages