Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2009/03/10 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: 080509 Chapter: 8-35j AR: 635-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Participation RE: SPD: NA Unit/Location: EEE, 108th SUST BDE, Crestwood, IL 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: 22 Current ENL Date: 041007 Current ENL Term: 03 Years 5 Months and 17 Days Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 07Mos, 03Days ????? Total Service: 07 Yrs, 08Mos, 04Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA-000906-041006/HD Highest Grade: E5 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 25U10/Signal Support Systems Specialist GT: 101 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Southwest Asia Combat: Kuwait/Iraq (030306-040216), prior period of service. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AGCM, AAM-1, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, NDSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR, NCOPDR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to a discharge from the Army National Guard State of Illinois and his transfer to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement). However, the record does contain a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), which the applicant was unavailable for signature. It indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 8-35j, NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participation with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions, and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) Code of " 3." b. Legal Basis for Separation: 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 8-35j 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 for the period of enlistment under review, the issues and documents he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to a discharge from the Army National Guard State of Illinois. However, the available records does contain a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), which the applicant was unavailable for signature. This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process. The evidence of record further shows that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 8, paragraph 8-35j, NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participation with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Barring evidence to the contrary, the analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issues reference being excused from AT (Annual Training), however, the analyst determined that the applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, without committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review and the analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Additionally, the analyst acknowledges the independent documents submitted with the application indicating that the applicant was diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), however, the applicant's available record does not contain any evidence of inservice diagnosis of PTSD as indicated in the independent documentation and the applicant did not submit any corroborating evidence of inservice diagnosis of PTSD or related medical issues. Finally, the analyst determined that the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) does not contain all the specific documents that would indicate the reason for the separation action from the Army National Guard. If the applicant desires to appear before a personal appearance Board, the burden of proof remains with the former Soldier to provide the appropriate documents or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board’s consideration. In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 20 November 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 0 No change 5 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 AR20090003981 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages