Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2008/07/30 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents submitted by the applicant. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Tender Offer: NA See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Discharge Under Review Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 050728 Chapter: 13 AR: 135-178 Reason: Unsatisfactory Participation RE: SPD: NA Unit/Location: 88th RRC TTHS Account, Fort Snelling, MN Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 21 Current ENL Date: 020126 Current ENL Term: 08 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 06Mos, 03Days ????? Total Service: 03 Yrs, 06Mos, 03Days ????? Previous Discharges: ADT-020220-020703/NA (Concurrent Service) Highest Grade: E1 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 77F10/Petroleum Supply Specialist GT: NIF EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Bellbrook, OH Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The complete facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge from the Reserve of the Army are not contained in the available records. However, evidence shows that on 4 August 2004, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 135-178, Paragraph 13-1, by reason of unsatisfactory participation for refusal to attend Annual Training with the Company at Fort Gordon, GA, from 4-18 June 2004, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 25 October 2004, the intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The applicant's election of rights and the separation authorities approval memorandum are not contained in the available record and the analyst presumed Government Regularity in the discharge process. Further, the record indicates that on 28 June 2005, Department of the Army, HQ, 88th Regional Readiness Command, Fort Snelling, Minnesota, Orders 05-179-00055, discharged the applicant from the United States Army Reserve, effective 28 July 2005, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 135-78 govern procedures covering enlisted personnel management of the Army Reserve. Chapter 8 of NGR 600-200 covers, in pertinent part, reasons for discharge and separation of enlisted personnel from the USAR. Paragraph 13-1 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. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s available military records during the period of enlistment under review, the issues, and document he submitted, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge to general, under honorable conditions. There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service. While the analyst does not condone the applicant’s unsatisfactory participation, the evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the characterization of service is too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable. The analyst determined that the length of the applicant's service and the recommendation of the unit and intermediate commander for approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, mitigated the discrediting entries in the service record. Accordingly, the analyst recommends that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions. However the reason for discharge remains both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 15 May 2009 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA VIII. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable, and voted to deny relief. IX. Board Decision XI. Certification Signature Board Vote: Approval Authority: Character - Change 2 No change 3 Reason - Change 0 No change 5 (Board member names available upon request) EDGAR J. YANGER Colonel, U.S. Army X. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20080011962 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages