Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/03/17	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 149 and supporting 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: Not In File (NIF)
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 061026   Chapter: 13    AR: 135-178
Reason: Unsatisfactory Participation	   RE:     SPD: NIF   Unit/Location: Det 1, 372d MP Co, Fort Meade, MD 

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:  23
Current ENL Date: 050331    Current ENL Term: 8 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 06Mos, 26Days ?????
Total Service:  		01 Yrs, 06Mos, 26Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	IADT 050407-050825/HD (Concurrent Service)
Highest Grade: E-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 31B10/Military Police   GT: 102   EDU: 1 YR COLL   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Arlington, VA
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states that he works as a ramp agent at an airline corporatin and part time for Inland Technology at Dulles airport.  He has provided several college transcripts for the Board's review.

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 26 October 2006, DA HQS, 99th Regional Readiness Command, Coraopolis, PA, discharged the applicant from the Army Reserve, effective 26 October 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.   Additionally, the record contains a memorandum dated 28 April 2006, from the applicant’s unit commander, which states that he had been declared an unsatisfactory participant and would be processed for discharge from the USAR.
       
       

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 135-178 govern procedures covering enlisted personnel management of the Army Reserve.  Chapter 13, 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 26 October 2006, Orders 06-299-00028, DA HQS, 99th Regional Readiness Command, Coraopolis, PA, discharged the applicant from the Army Reserve, effective 26 October 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.  
       
       Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue about his name change; however, the correction that the applicant requests does not fall within the purview of this Board.  The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), utilizing DD Form 149 regarding this matter.  An application for that Board can be obtained on line.  Further, the applicant states that he could not attend drills due to family issues; however, the analyst determined that he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, without committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review.  
       
       Additionally, 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, if appropriate.  The applicant did not receive a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code, because he was a member of the USAR.  Reentry Codes (RE) are provided to active duty members on military discharge documents (DD Form 214, Record of Discharge) and determine whether or not one may reenlist or enlist in a military service at a later time.   
       
       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: 11 January 2010         Location: Washington, D.C.

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, hearing his testimony 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: NA
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090004668
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages