MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:              15 July 1998                
	DOCKET NUMBER:      AC98-07510

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr.	James C. Hise		Chairperson	
	Ms.	JoAnn H. Langston		Member	
	Mr.	Thomas D. Howard Jr.		Member	

	Also present, without vote, were:

	Mr.	Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr	Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A -  Application for correction of military 
                             records
	Exhibit B -  Military Personnel Records (including
	                  advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his general/under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he would like to receive veterans benefits.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

On 18 August 1982 the applicant entered the Army National Guard (ARNG) for a period of 6 years.  He completed initial active duty for training (IADT) at Fort Dix, New Jersey.  Upon completion of IADT the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 64C (Light Wheel Vehicle and Power Generator Operator), and returned to Mason City, Iowa for duty with his unit.

The applicant’s record indicates the highest grade he held was private first class/E-3, and the record contains no documented acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  However, the record does contain a recorded history of non- participation in scheduled unit assemblies on the part of the applicant. 

On 26 February 1985 the applicant’s unit commander initiated action to separate the applicant from the Iowa National Guard for unsatisfactory participation, under the provisions of AR 135-91.  The commander based his recommendation on the applicant’s failure to attend scheduled unit training assemblies for the following periods: 16-17 June 1984; 28 July 1985; and 2-3 February 1985, a total of 
10 unexcused absences.

On 15 March 1985 the Adjutant General, of the state of Iowa, directed the applicant be separated from the ARNG with a GD.  Accordingly, on 15 March 1985 the applicant was discharged from the ARNG after completing 2 years,
6 months, and 28 days of National Guard service.  

At the time of his separation from the ARNG the applicant was assigned to the United States Army Control Group (Annual Training), US Army Reserve Components Personnel and Administrative Center, St. Louis, Missouri.  He was subsequently honorably discharged from the Ready Reserve on 17 August 1988.

On 2 April 1998 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge and found that the discharge process was proper in all respects.

National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 and Army Regulation 135-91 govern procedures covering enlisted personnel management of the Army National Guard.  Chapter 7 of NGR 600-200, in effect at the time,  covered, in pertinent part, reasons for discharge and separation of enlisted personnel from the State Army Reserve National Guard.  Paragraph 7-10 ( r ) of that regulation provided, 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.  

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The Board concurs with the findings and conclusions of the ADRB and presumes that the applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations. There is no indication of procedural errors by the ADRB which would tend to have substantially jeopardized the applicant's rights.

2.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director