IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	11 March 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130014997
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony and notwithstanding the examiner’s Discussion and Recommendation that follows, the Board determined that the discharge is now inequitable.  The Board found the overall length and quality of the applicant’s service, and his testimony mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable.  The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it.



      
      
      Presiding Officer
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case.

THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND STATEMENT:

1.  The applicant requests an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to fully honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was never informed his characterization of service would be this for two days.  He believes this is inequitable because of the two days he requested and  the number of times he was called to arms.
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			12 August 2013
b. Discharge Received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				8 May 2000
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Unsatisfactory Participation, NGR 600-200, 
Chapter 8, paragraph 26k, NA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:				29th Military Police Company, Pikesville, MD
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		NIF
g. Current Enlistment Service:		NIF
h. Total Service:				5 years, 11 months, 29 days
i. Time Lost:					None
j. Previous Discharges:			ARNG, 940510-941102, NIF
IADT, 941103-950317, NIF
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		95B10, Military Police
m. GT Score:					88
n. Education:					HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:				None
p. Combat Service:				None
q. Decorations/Awards:			ASR, NDSM, ARCOTR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		NA
s. Performance Ratings:			NA
t. Counseling Statements:			NIF
u. Prior Board Review:				No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard on 10 May 1994 for an unspecified period of time.  He was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  His record is void of any significant acts of achievement or valor.  He completed 5 years, 11 months, and 29 days of military service.  When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving in Pikesville, Maryland.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence of record does not contain the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the applicant’s discharge from the Maryland Army National Guard.  

2.  The record contains a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service).  It indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 8-26k, NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participation with a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of "3."  

3.  On 3 May 2013, the Deputy G1, Maryland Army National Guard, reviewed the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.  Based on a review of the applicant’s discharge it was upgraded to general, under honorable conditions, as annotated on orders transferring him to the United States Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Reinforced), dated 15 June 2000.  It was determined that the applicant had 21 absences from May 1997 to May 1998, 38 absences from May 1998 to May 1999, and 28 absences from may 199 to May 2000.  

4.  A memorandum from the Deputy G1, Maryland Army National Guard, dated 3 May 2013, indicates the applicant had a total of 87 absences over a three year period.  

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

The applicant’s record did not contain any derogatory information or actions under the UCMJ.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 25 November 2012; a NGB Form 22, a letter from DA Review Boards Agency, dated 9 January 2013; an undated self-authored statement from the applicant; a letter from the Deputy G1, Maryland Army National Guard; a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), dated 12 September 1997; a Promotion Order 97-26, dated 15 July 1997, promoting the applicant to the pay grade and rank of E-4/SPC, effective 15 July 1997; and, a fax cover sheet with three questions listed.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant did not provide any in support of his application.

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1.  National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 and Army Regulation 135-91 govern procedures covering enlisted personnel management of the Army National Guard.  Chapter 6 of NGR 600-200 covers, in pertinent part, reasons for discharge and separation of enlisted personnel from the State Army National Guard.  Paragraph 6-35j of that regulation stipulates 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.  
2.  Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.  

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered.  However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, his military records, the documents and the issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  

2.  The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not contained in the available records.  The record contains a properly constituted NGB Form 22 that indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 8-26k, NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participation, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions, and a reentry eligibility code of 3.  

3.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.  

4.  The applicant's contentions were carefully considered.  However, a determination as to the merit of these contentions cannot be made because the facts and circumstances leading to the discharge are unknown.  The burden of proof remains with the applicant to provide the appropriate documents such as the discharge packet or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration.  If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will still be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof since the discharge packet is not available in the official record. 

5.  The applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because of two days he requested and the number of times he was called to arms.  However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this issue.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discriminated.  The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge.   

6.  The applicant provided documentation from the Deputy G-1, Maryland Army National Guard, that indicates that on 3 May 2013, the applicant’s discharge was upgraded after a review of his records to general, under honorable conditions.  Further, the applicant had a total of 87 absences over a three year period from May 1997 to May 2000.

7.  Therefore, based on the available evidence and the presumption of government regularity, it appears the reason for discharge and the characterization of service are both proper and equitable, thus recommend the Board deny relief. 

SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing: Personal Appearance    Date: 11 March 2014      Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: None

DOCUMENTS/TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE:

1.  The applicant submitted no additional documents or contentions.

In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing.

Board Vote:
Character Change:  3	No Change:  2
Reason Change:	0	No Change:  5
(Board member names available upon request)

Board Action Directed:
Issue a new NGB Form 22a:	No
Change Characterization to:	Honorable
Change Reason to:			No Change
Change Authority for Separation:	NA
Change RE Code to:		NA
Grade Restoration to:		NA
Other:  Thru:  Chief, National Guard Bureau                                         Date: 11 March 2014
To:  Adjutant General, State of Maryland, Maryland Army National Guard, Joint Forces Headquarters, Fifth Regiment Armory, 29th Division Street, Baltimore MD 21201.

            The Army Discharge Review Board, under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 1553, in the case of the applicant named in Page 1, recommends the applicant be considered for a change of his discharge by the Adjutant General, State of Maryland, with issuance of a new NGB Form 22a, as follows:
                  
           ( X )   Change characterization of discharge to Honorable.

Legend:
AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record	FG - Field Grade	IADT – Initial Active Duty Training	 	RE - Reentry
AWOL - Absent Without Leave	GD - General Discharge	NA - Not applicable	SCM- Summary Court Martial
BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge	HS - High School	NIF - Not in File	SPCM - Special Court Martial
CG - Company Grade Article 15	HD - Honorable Discharge	OAD - Ordered to Active Duty	UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge  
CID - Criminal investigation Department                                  MP – Military Police      OMPF-Official Military Personnel File      UOTHC - Under Other Than      Honorable Conditions


ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont)		AR20130014997



Page 2 of 5 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1