Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/03/26	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 submitted by 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: 070915   Chapter:  8-35i(1) & 12-1d    AR: NGR 600-200 & AR 135-178 
Reason: Acts or Patterns of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: NA   Unit/Location: ????? 

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: 010327    Current ENL Term: 8 Years  (6 Year extension - 070327 - 130327) 
Current ENL Service: 	6 Yrs, 5Mos, 19Days ?????
Total Service:  		6 Yrs, 5Mos, 19Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 030224-040602/HD (MOB SVC) 
                                       IADT 020604-021008 UNC
                                       IADT 010612-010823 UNC
 
Highest Grade: E5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 68W20 Health Care Spec   GT: 110   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: SWA   Combat: Iraq (030406-040414)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, ARCAM,  NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, AFRM/"M", OSR, GCMDL,CMB, DVR/MECH 

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: None provided 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 of Iowa.  The evidence indicates that on 8 April 2008, HQs, Iowa National Guard, Office of the Adjutant General, Johnston, Iowa, Orders 099-027 discharged the applicant from the Army National Guard and as a Reserve of the Army, effective date 15 September 2007, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  Although the applicant was not available for signature, 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 8-35i(1), NGR 600-200, by reason of acts or patterns of misconduct – unsatisfactory participation, and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of "3."

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 and Army Regulation 135-91 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 8-27(g) 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 military records for the period of enlistment under review and 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 Iowa 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 8-35i (1), NGR 600-200, by reason of acts or patterns of misconduct 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 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, he should contact the local recruiter to determine his 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 acknowledges the applicant's diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia by the Department of Veterans Affairs in the documents with his application.  However, the record does not support the issue that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  Further, 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: 16 December 2009          Location: Washington, D.C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: Department of Veteran's Affairs documents submitted with  DD form 293.

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 1    No change 4
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5

								         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: ?????
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090005108
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 3 of 3 pages