Applicant Name:  

Application Receipt Date: 2009/01/29	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: 	NIF   Date: NIF
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 070806   Chapter: 8-26e(2)b      AR: NGR 600-200
Reason: First Time Drug Offender	   RE:     SPD: NA   Unit/Location: 1/221st CAV, Carson City, NV 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 060921, wrongfully use cocaine, on or about 060710 at or near Camp Shelby, MS; reduction to E2, 30 days extra duty (FG).

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  20
Current ENL Date: 050809    Current ENL Term: 6 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	1 Yrs, 11Mos, 28Days ?????
Total Service:  		2 Yrs, 21Mos, 8Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	 IADT 050818-060221/HD
                                           RA 060501-070806/GD
Highest Grade: E4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 25C/Radio Operator Maint   GT: 102   EDU: GED   Overseas: SWA   Combat: Kuwait (060721-060822)
Decorations/Awards: AAMx2, NDSM, GTOWSM, GTOWEM, ICM, ASR, OSR, AFRM/w"M", CAB

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Las Vegas, NV
Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted by the applicant.

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 National Guard of the State Nevada.  The evidence indicates that on 18 December 2007, Nevada Military Department, Office of the Adjutant General, Carson City, NV Orders 352-604 discharged the applicant from the Army National Guard and as a Reserve of the Army, effective date 6 August 2007, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  The record does contain 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 8-26e(2)b, NGR 600-200, by reason first time drug offender, with a characterization of service of general, under honorbale conditions, 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 8-26e(2) 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 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 State of Nevada National Guard and 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 8-26e(2)b, NGR 600-200, by reason of misconduct first time drug offender with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  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 issues; 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.  Furthermore, at the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “3.”  If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact the local recruiter to determine 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.  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.  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: 30 October 2009         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: None















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 AR20090004591
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages