Applicant Name 

Application Receipt Date: 2012/02/10	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that it was recently been reported to him that his discharge was a result of not showing up for drill; however, it is 100% false.  His uncharacterized discharge is an error.  Ms. P, his unit administrator, and he (the applicant), have made arrangements with the local recruiter's office for the Armed Forces in Gainesville (where he was at school at the time).  He worked there every day, not once a month on a weekend.  His LES records proves he did not miss drill warranting such a discharge.  His drill instructors can also help explain.  

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: 040731   Chapter: NIF    AR: 135-178
Reason: NIF	   RE:     SPD: NIF   Unit/Location: 81st RRC, TTHS Account, (W8B050), Birmingham, AL 

Time Lost: NIF

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  19
Current ENL Date: 030513    Current ENL Term: 8 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 00 Mos, 00 Days ?????
Total Service:  		01 Yrs, 00 Mos, 00 Days (for period 030519-031103 and 040305)
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 12B (Combat Engineer)   GT: NIF   EDU: 13 Years   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NIF

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed.

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 which led to his discharge from the Army Reserve.  The record indicates that on 2 July 2004, DA HQS, 81st Regional Readiness Command, Birmingham, Alabama, Orders number 04-184-00012, discharged the applicant from the Army Reserve, effective 31 July 2004, with an uncharacterized discharge.  The record contains a properly constituted Order which indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 135-178, by reason of unsatisfactory participation, with a characterization of service as uncharacterized. 
       

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 135-178 sets forth the policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. The separation policies throughout the different Chapters in this regulation promote the readiness of the Army by providing an orderly means to judge the suitability of persons to serve on the basis of their conduct and their ability to meet required standards of duty performance and discipline.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, and convictions by civil authorities.  The characterization is based upon the quality of the Soldier’s service, including the reason for separation and determined in accordance with standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty as found in the UCMJ, Army Regulations, and the time-honored customs and traditions of the Army.  The reasons for separation, including the specific circumstances that form the basis for the discharge are considered on the issue of characterization.  Possible characterizations of service include an honorable, general, under honorable conditions, under other than honorable conditions, or uncharacterized, if the Soldier is in entry-level status.  However, the permissible range of characterization varies based on the reason for separation.

       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 which would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  
       
       The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the former Soldier’s discharge from the Army.  However, the record shows that on 2 July 2004, DA HQS, 81st Regional Readiness Command, Birmingham, AL, discharged the applicant from the Army Reserve, effective 31 July 2004, with an uncharacterized discharge.  Although 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, the available record does show periods during which the applicant was credited with attending drills and/or inactive duty training. 
       
       The applicant's contentions were carefully considered.  However, the analyst determined that based on the available record, specifically the applicant's chronological statement of points shows several periods during which he did not accrue any points which may have led to his discharge for unsatisfactory participation as a result of numerous unexcused absences from scheduled unit-training assemblies.  The applicant's leave and earning statements that he provided also verify accountable periods during which he was compensated for attending inactive duty training that corresponded with the aforementioned chronological statement of points.  Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity in this case and the application contains no documentation or further evidence that sufficiently explains the voided period of service.  If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will still be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof since the evidence is not available in the official record.  
       
       AR 135-178, in pertinent part, stipulates that a Soldier is subject to discharge for unsatisfactory participation when it is determined that the Soldier is unqualified for further military service because the Soldier is an unsatisfactory participant as prescribed by AR 135-91, chapter 4;  and attempts to have the Soldier respond or comply with orders or correspondence have resulted in the Soldier’s refusal to comply with orders or correspondence; or a notice sent by certified mail was refused, unclaimed, or otherwise undeliverable; or verification that the Soldier has failed to notify the command of a change of address and reasonable attempts to contact the Soldier have failed. 
       
       Therefore, based on the available evidence, the analyst presumes government regularity in the discharge process and concludes that it appears 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: 25 July 2012         Location: Washington, D.C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, House of Representatives, 10100 Pines Boulevard, Pembroke Pines, FL 33026

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 149, dated 1 February 2012; Discharge Orders, dated 2 July 2004; Chronological Statement of Retirement Points, dated 4 January 2012; 12 Military Leave and Earning Statements (8 statements report period of inactive duty training and 4 statements report "zero" period of inactive duty training); Congressional Correspondence x 8 pages.

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						
Board Vote:
Character - Change 0    No change 5
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)

X.  Board Action Directed
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to: 
Change Reason to: NA
Other: NA
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA

XI.  Certification Signature
Approval Authority:




ARCHIE L. DAVIS III
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board




BONITA E. TROTMAN
Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army
Secretary Recorder

Legend:
AWOL    	Absent Without Leave		GCM   General Court Martial	NA   Not applicable			SCM	Summary Court Martial
BCD   	Bad Conduct Discharge	GD      General Discharge	NIF   Not in the file			SPCM	Special Court Martial
CG 	Company Grade Article 15	HD      Honorable Discharge	OAD   Ordered to Active Duty		UNC	Uncharacterized Discharge  
DD 	Dishonorable Discharge	HS       High School Graduate	OMPF   Official Military Personnel File	UOTH  	Under Other Than Honorable 
FG	Field Grade Article 15		IADT   Initial Active Duty Training	RE     Reentry Code				Conditions 
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20120002833
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 3 of 3 pages