CASE NO:  AR1999024699

PART II - APPLICATION DATA

(Note: Part I deleted under the Privacy Act on Reading Room copy)

1.  Character of Discharge:  UOHC

2.  Date of discharge (or REFRAD):  920423

3.  Authority for separation:

	a.  Regulation:  Paragraph 8-26q, NGR 600-200

	b.  Reason:  Acts or Patterns of Misconduct

4.  Prior review(s):  NONE

PART III - SERVICE HISTORY

SECTION A - Period of Service Under Review

1.	Service data:                              2.  Awards and decorations:
			                          NDSM                       
a.  Period entered for:  6 Years  (6 yrs ext)  ASR
b.  Entry date:  780222            (890808)    
c.  Age:  18 Years   DOB:  590320                                          
d.  Educational level:  11 Years                                                
e.  Aptitude area score:
	    GT:  75                                3.  Highest grade achieved:
    f.  Length of Service:                         E4
        14 Years  2 Months  2 Days                 
                                                   
                                               4.  Performance evaluations:  
                                                   NONE

PART III - SERVICE HISTORY
SECTION A - Period of Service Under Review - Continued

5.  Periods of unauthorized absence:  NONE
                                                                    
    Status       Inclusive dates                       
	AWOL                                                               

	Mil conf                                                           

	Civil conf                                                         

	Other                                                              

6.  Nonjudicial punishment:  NONE

	Date 	Offense(s)

7.  Court-Martial data:  NONE

	a.  SCM:  
		Date   Offense(s)

	b.  SPCM:  
		Date   Offense(s)

	c.  GCM:	 
		Date   Offense(s)

8.	Remarks:  NONE

SECTION B - Prior Service Data

Other discharge(s):

	Service	From	To	Type Discharge
	IADT          780423    780803        NA

PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW

SECTION A-ANALYST’S ASSESSMENT
l.  Facts and Circumstances:

	a.  The evidence of record shows that on 23 June 1992, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of AR 135-178, misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs, with a recommendation for an under other than honorable conditions (UOHC) discharge.  The applicant had been advised of his rights and acknowledged notification of the action.  On 18 February 1992, the unit commander notified the applicant that his request for an administrative separation board (ASB) had been approved and advised him of the time, date, and place where the ASB would convene.  On 11 April 1992, the ASB convened to consider the applicant’s case, the applicant was not present at the hearing.  After hearing all the testimony and examining all of the evidence, the ASB deliberated, and recommended that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of UOHC.  The available records does not contain the final approval of the separation authority, the State Adjutant General of Indiana, but does contain a properly constituted National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) which documents following facts:  Authority and Reason for Separation-Paragraph 8-26q, National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200, Acts or Patterns of Misconduct; and Character of Service-Under Other Than Honorable.  

	b.  The NGB Form 22 also shows that on 23 April 1992, the applicant was separated from the Indiana National Guard with a UOHC discharge.  At the time of his discharge the applicant had completed 14 years, 2 months, and 2 days of National Guard service.

	c.  The applicant’s record shows that he completed over 14 years of service in the Army National Guard and that he never advance beyond the rank of specialist/E-4.  The applicant tested positive for the use of Illegal drugs and the unit commander initiated separation action based on this abuse of illegal drugs.  After being afforded all rights associated with the separation action the applicant elected to have his case considered by an ASB; however, he failed to attend the ASB hearing.  The ASB after completing it’s deliberation recommended that the applicant be separated and that his service be characterized as UOHC.  Accordingly, on 23 April 1992, the applicant received a UOHC discharge from the Indiana National Guard and in accordance with applicable Army regulations, was reduced to the lowest enlisted rank.

2.  Legal/Regulatory Basis for Separation Action:  National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 and Army Regulation 135-91 govern procedures covering enlisted personnel management of the Army National Guard.  Chapter 8 of NGR 600-200 covers, in pertinent part, reasons for discharge and separation of enlisted personnel from the State Army Reserve National Guard.  Paragraph 8-27(g) of that regulation provides 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.  

SECTION B-APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS

1.  Issue(s) of propriety and/or equity submitted by applicant or counsel.
    As stated on applicant’s DD Form 293.
2.  Exhibit(s) submitted:
	A-1:  DD Form 293, dated 990128, with three (3) enclosure(s).
	A-2:  Counsel Issues:  NONE
	B-l:  Other Documents: NONE

PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW (CONTINUED)

SECTION C - Medical and/or Legal Advisory Opinion

Referred to ( ) Medical Advisor      ( ) Legal Advisor

      a.  Medical prehearing comments (if applicable):

      b.  Legal prehearing comments (if applicable):

PART V - SUMMARY OF HEARING

SECTION A-Attendees and exhibits

1.  Review/hearing information:

	a. Type requested:
	   ( X ) Records review             (   ) Hearing

	b. Type Held:
	   ( X )Records review              (   ) Hearing
	                                    (   ) Tender Offer

	c. Review/hearing location and date:  Washington D.C. on 16 June 1999.

	d. Appearance by:
	   Applicant                 (   ) Yes   ( X ) No
	   Counsel                   (   ) Yes   ( X ) No

	e.  Applicant testified:     (   ) Yes   ( X ) No
	
	f.  Counsel presentation:    (   ) Yes   ( X ) No
	
	g.  Witness(es) testified:   (   ) Yes   ( X ) No
	                                                
2.  Exhibit(s) submitted at hearing:  

PART VI - ISSUES AND FINDINGS

1.  a.  Applicant's issue(s) of propriety and/or equity:

	    ( X )	Same as those listed on DD Form 293 and Part IV, Section A of this case report and directive.
	    (   )	Revised issue(s) furnished in writing by applicant as follows:
	    ( X )	Additional issue(s) identified during review/hearing as follows:

        Board Issue:  (2)  The characterization of service was too harsh.

	b.  Request:  ( X ) Recharacterization     (   ) Change of Reason

2.  Finding(s), conclusion(s), and reason(s) for the Board's decision(s) on issues of propriety and/or equity:

	a.  Propriety:	The applicant has not submitted an issue of propriety and the ADRB has not otherwise relied upon an issue of propriety to change the discharge.

	b.  Equity:	The parenthetical number(s) below correspond(s) to the issue number(s) on the DD Form 293, or in Part VI, Paragraph 1, above.

       (2)  The issue is accepted.  There was a full consideration of all service including the infraction of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offense.  The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable because the quality of the applicant's service did not warrant the granting of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The applicant's failure to perform in accordance with Army standards was mitigated by service of sufficient merit to warrant an upgrade of the discharge being reviewed.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  The Board determined that the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 

        (1)  See Paragraph 3, below.

3.  Response to item not addressed as a decisional issue:

    Inasmuch as the Board voted to grant the relief requested by the applicant, a response to the remaining issue is neither required nor rendered.

PART VII - BOARD ACTION
SECTION A - Conclusions/Decisions/Vote

1.	Board conclusion(s):

	The discharge was:

	( X )	Proper.
	(   )	Improper as to characterization.  Change characterization to                                     .
	(   )	Improper as to reason.  Change reason to                         under                      .

	(   )	Equitable.
	( X )	Inequitable as to characterization.  Change characterization to General, Under Honorable Conditions.
	(   )	Inequitable as to reason.  Change reason to                       
		under                                 .
	(   )	Both proper and equitable, but characterization/reason for separation cited was an administrative/clerical error and should be changed to                      under                         .

2.  Voting record:      Change   No Change
	            Reason       0         5  
    Characterization       5         0   

	  The names and votes of the members of the Board are recorded in Part IX of this document and can be obtained by writing to the address below.  The request must contain the CASE NO. located in the upper right corner of this document.

                  Department of the Army Review Boards Agency
                  ATTN:  Promulgation Team
                  1941 Jefferson Davis Highway, 2nd Floor
                  Arlington, VA  22202-4508

3.  Minority views:  NONE  

PART VII - BOARD ACTION
SECTION B - Verification and Authentication

Case report reviewed and verified	

MR. ADRIANCE                           
Case Reviewing Official	

PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATION
SECTION A - DIRECTIVE

Thru: Chief, National Guard Bureau              Date:  18 June 1999.
To:   Adjutant General, State of Indiana

     The Army Discharge Review Board, established under the provisions of Section 30, Public Law 346, 78th Congress, 22 June 1944 and codified as Title 10, United States Code, Section 1553, in the case of the applicant named in Part I recommends that the applicant be considered for discharge by the Adjutant General, State of Indiana, with issuance of a new NGB Form 22, as follows:
           ( X )	Change the characterization of the discharge to General, Under Honorable Conditions.
           
           ( X )	Other (see remarks below).

Remarks:  Restore the applicant’s grade to specialist/E-4.

SECTION B - CERTIFICATION

Approval Authority:

THOMAS J. ALLEN
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge
   Review Board

Official:

SUZANNE WALKER    
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder

EXHIBITS:
A - Application for review of discharge              	C - Other 
B - Material submitted by applicant

INDEX RECORD:
AR Number:  1999024669                    INDEX NUMBERS:  A9218
Date of Review:  990616                                   A9446
Character of Service:  UD                                 A0100
Date of Discharge:  920423                                
Authority:  NGR 600-200 C8                                
Reason:  A6770                                            
Results of Board Action/                                  
Vote/Affirmation:  GD 5-0 A                               

PART IX - VOTING RECORD

    Name                                   Reason         Characterization
                                           CHANGE   NC    HON   UHC   NC   UNCHAR
    1. 	Mbr          X            X             

    2. 	Mbr          X            X             

    3. 	Mbr          X            X             

    4. 	Mbr          X            X             

    5. 	Mbr          X            X