MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  12 December 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:  ARAR2002073588

	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	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Roger W. Able		Chairperson	
	Mr. Bernard P. Ingold		Member	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		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 uncharacterized discharge from the Virginia Army National Guard (VAARNG) be changed to a more favorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge should be changed due to an improper procedure given to him by the VAARNG to transfer to North Carolina.  He proceeded to the nearest unit in Winston Salem, North Carolina which was a medical unit, not an infantry unit.  

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

He enlisted in the VAARNG on 8 March 1989, as a light weapons infantryman (11B).  He was ordered to initial active duty for training (IADT) on 22 June 1990, and was released from IADT on 10 August 1990.

The applicant’s records contain two Letters of Instruction-Unexcused Absence which show that the applicant was absent on several occasions from scheduled unit training assemblies. The letters also stated that the applicant was required to attend all scheduled unit training assemblies and annual training periods under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-91.  As of 6 May 1990, he had accrued eight unexcused absences in the past 12 months.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his NGB Form 22 (National Guard Bureau Report of Separation and Record of Service), dated 18 December 1990, shows that he was discharged under the provisions of National Guard 600-200, paragraph 8-26u, due to a defective enlistment agreement with his character of service as uncharacterized.

National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 governs procedures for enlisted personnel of the Army National Guard.  Paragraph 8-26 covers reasons, applicability, codes, and board requirements for administrative discharges from the Reserve of the Army and/or the State ARNG.  Paragraph 8-26(u) pertains to defective enlistment agreement (includes soldiers unable to attend IADT within appropriate maximum timeframes).

Army Regulation 135-91 (Service Obligations, Methods of Fulfillment, Participation Requirements, and Enforcement Procedures) prescribes policy 
and procedures governing the various types of service obligations and participation requirements for members of the USAR and Army National Guard (ARNG).  Chapter 4 provides guidance governing absences from Ready Reserve Training for enlisted and officer personnel of the ARNG and USAR.  Paragraph 

4-2 states, in pertinent part, that the unit commander or acting commander is authorized to excuse absences and authorize equivalent training (ET).  This authority will not be further delegated.  A State Adjutant General (for ARNG) and general officer commanders (for USAR) are authorized to grant exceptions to unexcused absences and it may be delegated to commanders in grade O-5 or above.

Paragraph 4-11 of the same regulation pertains to unexcused absence from unit training assemblies.  It states that a member is an unsatisfactory participant when nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills occur during a 
1-year period.  Unless an absence is authorized, a soldier failing to attend a scheduled single or multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) will be charged with an unexcused absence.

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 applicant’s records contained two Letters of Instruction-Unexcused Absence, which shows that the applicant was absent on several occasions from scheduled unit training assemblies.  The Board notes that he was required to attend all scheduled unit training assemblies and annual training periods under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-91, which he did not follow.

2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  The type of separation directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.

4.  The Board notes the applicant's contentions; however, there is no evidence 
in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence to support his contentions, or to show that his discharge should be changed to a more favorable discharge.

5.  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 this requirement.  

6.  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

__ra___  __bi____  ___kf___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002073588	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20021212	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UNCHAR	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19901218	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .NG 600-200 PARA 8-26u  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	360	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.