MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           6 September 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001053998

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 be upgraded and the reason for his separation be changed.  (On 24 August 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) recommended that the Army National Guard (ARNG) change his Report of Separation and Record of Service, NGB Form 22, to show he received a fully honorable discharge.)

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was not absent without leave (AWOL).  He went through his chain of command, explaining that his job was conflicting with his Tennessee Army National Guard (TNARNG) duties and requesting discharge.  His commander told him he would complete the necessary paperwork to terminate his contract but never did.  He never received the notices that he had unexcused absences or that he was going to be separated for unsatisfactory participation.  He provides two letters as supporting evidence.

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

He enlisted in the TNARNG on 4 August 1980.  

Beginning around October 1989, the applicant was sent several notices of unexcused absences by certified mail.  At no time was the certified mail receipt signed.  One time, the envelope was annotated as not deliverable.  

On or about 5 December 1989, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for separation for unsatisfactory participation.  The applicant never responded to this notification, apparently because it was never received by him.  

On 1 February 1990, the applicant was discharged from the ARNG with a general under honorable conditions discharge and transferred to the U. S. Army Reserve (USAR) Individual Ready Reserve after completing 9 years, 5 months, and 28 days of service.

On 3 August 1992, the applicant was honorably discharged from the USAR.  He apparently reenlisted in the ARNG in 1999.

The applicant provides one letter of support from a Chief Warrant Officer Four (CW4) who apparently was a supervisor of the applicant.  The CW4 states that he remembered the applicant leaving the unit due to a job conflict but did not remember the specifics concerning the situation.  He did remember that a number of unit members had requested transfer or discharge and for unknown 

reasons their requests were not processed and they were discharged for being AWOL.  The CW4 could not say that he personally saw the applicant’s request but gave him the benefit of the doubt.

The other letter is signed by an individual who was apparently the applicant’s section chief.  However, the wording of the letter indicates that it was written by the applicant.  

Army Regulation 135-91 prescribes policies governing the various types of service obligations and participation requirements and applies to ARNG and USAR soldiers.  In pertinent part, it states that a member is an unsatisfactory participant when nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills occur during a 1-year period.

National Guard Regulation 600-200 governs procedures covering enlisted personnel management of the ARNG.  In pertinent part, it states that an individual can be separated for being an unsatisfactory participant.

On 24 August 2001, the ADRB found, because of the applicant’s length of service, his generally acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty, and the completion of his entire service obligation, that the characterization of service received from the TNARNG was inequitable.  The ADRB voted to upgrade the characterization of his service to fully honorable.  The ADRB, however, could not find sufficient evidence to support the applicant’s contention that he notified his command of his desire to be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve prior to completion of his contractual agreement with the TNARNG and voted not to change the reason for 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.  The Board is in agreement with the ADRB in finding that there is insufficient evidence to show the applicant notified his command of his desire to terminate his ARNG contract.  The CW4 was not sure of the facts in the applicant’s specific case and stated so in his support letter.  Although the other support letter was signed by an individual who was apparently the applicant’s section chief, it was in fact a first-hand recitation of the applicant’s view of the facts and not a statement of the facts as that section chief remembered them.  

2.  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

__lls___  __mhm___  __jtm___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001053998	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010906	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.