MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:           19 May 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999019818

	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.

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Robert G. Hinkle		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	

	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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That he only missed one National Guard meeting and he was discharged. 

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

The applicant enlisted in the Indiana Army National Guard on 7 March 1980 for a period of 6 years.  He was ordered to active duty for training on 24 April 1980 and released from active duty with an honorable discharge on 2 October 1980.    

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not contained in the available records.  However, his records indicate that he was separated from the Indiana Army National Guard under other than honorable conditions on 31 July 1981 under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 600-200, chapter 7, for continued absence from drill - obligor.  He was transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) to complete his reserve obligation  and was discharged from the IRR on 15 March 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-178.    

Item 19 (Remarks) of the applicant’s NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) shows “3.  NUMBER OF  UNEXCUSED ABSENCES:  9”.

In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from the National Guard Bureau.  It opined, in effect, that the applicant was separated from the Indiana Army National Guard on 31 July 1981 and he had been declared an unsatisfactory participant for accruing nine unexcused absences in a one year period per Army Regulation 135-91.  

National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 governs procedures for enlisted personnel of the Army National Guard.  Chapter 7 of NGR 600-200 covers, in pertinent part, discharge and separation of enlisted personnel due to unsatisfactory participation and refers to Army Regulation 135-178.  Army Regulation 135-178 (Separation of Enlisted Personnel) provides for the separation of enlisted personnel of the Army Reserve and Army National Guard.  Chapter 7 of the regulation, in effect at the time, governed separation for acts or patterns of misconduct, including unsatisfactory participation.  The regulation provided that the separation authority could disapprove the commander’s recommendation for discharge for misconduct and direct disposition by other means, disapprove the recommendation for separation for misconduct and direct separation for unsatisfactory performance, or convene a board of officers to determine whether the service member should separated for misconduct.  When discharged under this provision, the characterization of service was normally under other than honorable conditions.  The regulation also permitted the characterization of service as under honorable conditions, but did not authorize the characterization of service as honorable.

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

1.  The applicant’s contention that he only missed one National Guard meeting, is not valid.  The evidence of record shows he had nine unexcused absences.    

2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  Accordingly, the type discharge directed and the reasons therefore appear to be appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  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.

4.  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

JNS_____  RGH____  RWA____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999019818	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990519	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19810731	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 600-200 CHAPTER 7	
DISCHARGE REASON	CONTINUED ABSENCE FROM DRILL – OBLIGOR	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	189	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.