MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            27 January 2000  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026467

	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. Richard H. Allen		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge		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, upgrade of his general discharge (GD) to a fully honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In essence, that he was issued the discharge in question on 10 June 1987 by the New York Army National Guard (NYARNG) without notice and without any counseling concerning missed drill periods.  He has had a very successful Army Reserve (USAR) career since that time, with several awards and decorations.  He desires to now join the Air Force Reserves, but needs an HD for the period of service in question.  His Representative in Congress has asked that the Board grant relief.  

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records are incomplete and contain little documentation concerning the period of service in question.  Those records available show:

He had prior honorable Regular Army (RA) service from 10 November 1972 through 18 November 1974 (2 years and 9 days); honorable USAR service from 19 November 1974 through 9 November 1978 (3 years, 11 months and 20 days); 70 days in the Delayed Entry Program (DEP) of the USAR from 9 January–
17 March 1980; and honorable RA service from 18 March 1980 through 5 August 
1981 (1 year, 4 months and 18 days) which was terminated by a hardship discharge due to single parenthood.  His primary military occupational specialty (MOS) was11C (Infantry Indirect Fire Crewman) and the highest rank he attained was specialist four, pay grade E-4 in October 1974.  However, the highest rank he held while on his second period of active duty was private first class, pay grade E-3.  

On 14 March 1985, the applicant enlisted in the NYARNG for 1 year for assignment to an Engineer unit, for duty in MOS 12B (Combat Engineer).  On 
4 January 1986 he extended this enlistment for 6 years.  His rank at this time was private first class, pay grade E-3.  It appears that he was reduced to pay grade E-2 during March 1987, 3 months before his separation date, for reasons unknown.  
On 10 June 1987, he was separated from the NYARNG, with a GD, and was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training) (also known as the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR)) for completion of a 4 year, 9 month and 3 day statutory service obligation.  The authority for the separation was shown as National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200.  However no further separation reason is shown on the National Guard Bureau Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service).  His rank at the time of separation was private, pay grade E-2, with a date of rank of “l87” (sic) March 1987.  His awards and decorations included the Army Service Ribbon, the New York State Aid to Civil Authority Medal and the New York State Humane Service Medal.  There is no further documentation in his military records concerning this separation action.  He was credited with 2 years, 2 months and 27 days service in the NYARNG. 

On 9 December 1988, he was transferred from the IRR to a Troop Program Unit (TPU) (Company C, 99th Signal Battalion) of the USAR in Brooklyn, New York, to complete his statutory service obligation.

On 21 March 1991, the applicant enlisted in the USAR for 6 years, in pay grade E-4.  No further extensions or reenlistments are shown in his records.  However, he attended a USAR school for training in MOS 92Y (Unit Supply Specialist) from 9-21 March 1998, which was beyond the normal expiration of his 6-year term of service which should have ended in March 1997.  However, there are no other enlistment documents in his records which would explain his service into 1998.    

He has also provided documentation showing award of a certificate of appreciation from a USAR unit for support to that unit’s annual USAR training from 31 July-15 August 1992.  On 19 May 1993, orders were issued by his unit (343rd Evacuation Hospital (Semimoble)) awarding him the 1st Oak Leaf Cluster to the Army Reserves Component Achievement Medal for 4 years of satisfactory service from March 1989 through March of 1993.  

On 10 December 1995, his unit (now designated the 343rd Combat Support Hospital) recommended him for the award of the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) for achievement for the period 28 October-11 November 1995.  However, the documentation he provided to his Representative in Congress does not contain the approval page of this recommendation for award.  Nonetheless, he claims in his communications with his Representative in Congress that he received the ARCOM and the Army Achievement Medal while in the USAR.  

National Guard Regulation 600-200 contains various sections pertaining to the personnel management, utilization, promotions and separation of enlisted personnel from the Army National Guard.  Chapter 8, then in effect, stated, in pertinent part, that soldier’s who had nine or more unexcused drills within 1 year, were subject to separation or transfer to the IRR.  This latter course of action was required in the case of soldier’s with a statutory service obligation (Army Regulation 135-91 (Service Obligations, Methods of Fulfillment, Participation Requirements, and Enforcement Procedures) at chapters 5 and 
6.  National Guard soldiers were to receive notification of missed drills and would have to submit justification for the drill to be excused.  It was up to the unit commander to determine if the drill should be excused.  If the soldier exceeded the number of missed drills authorized within 1 year, separation action would be initiated.  Either an HD or a GD could be issued in such cases.  

On 9 September 1998, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge.
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.  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, in this case, has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  While the record of the discharge process in the applicant’s case is not available, the Board can find no evidence that the discharge process was not proper.  Further, the applicant has provided no proof of his allegations concerning the lack of counseling, or being offered an opportunity to “make up” the drills that he missed.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence of error or injustice, the Board must presume regularity of government operations.  

3.  As in many cases similar to the applicant’s, the characterization of discharge is consistent with soldiers’ who do not satisfactorily participate in unit drills.  The Board also notes that the applicant had been reduced from pay grade E-3 to pay grade E-2 approximately 3 months before he was separated.  Therefore, this would indicate to the Board that the applicant was aware of problems he was having in his NYARNG unit.

4.  Further, the Board is not convinced that the applicant was not aware of the discharge action at some time between 1987 and 1988 when he was transferred to the IRR in June 1987, then to a TPU of the USAR in late 1988.  If the applicant did not agree with the actions taken, he should have pursued the matter with the Adjutant General, State of New York at that time.

5.  While the applicant’s performance as a member of the USAR between 1988 and 1988 appears to be fully satisfactory, this in no way changes the facts in his case.  The Board commends the applicant for his accomplishments, but does not find that these accomplishments overcome his record of unsatisfactory participation in the NYARNG between March 1985 and June 1987.  

6.  Additionally, the Board does not change characterization of discharges solely based on a soldier’s desire to enlist in another military service.  He must work with other services to obtain reenlistment waivers.   

7.  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

__INW___  ___SK__  __EJA___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999026467	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19870610	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	NGR 600-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	A84.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.	A01.43	
3.	A01.00	
4.	A92.17	
5.	A92.21	
6.