MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            29 January 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001059244

	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	
	Mr. Lee Cates		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		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: That his records be corrected to show that his characterization of service in the Wisconsin Army National Guard (WIARNG) was honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: That he was discharged for not attending meetings while in pretrial restraint for an offense for which he was acquitted.  The applicant provided a copy of a computer-accessed document from The Circuit Court Automation Program (CCAP) Wisconsin Circuit Court Access, for which the subject is not identified.  

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

On 6 February 1996, the applicant enlisted in the WIARNG.

During the period 16 July through 22 November 1996, the applicant served on active duty for training and was awarded military occupational specialty 95B (Military Policeman).

On 1 June 1998, he was advanced to pay grade E-4.

During the period 12 September 1999 through 7 June 2000, the applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) from scheduled assemblies on 34 occasions.  During this period he failed to notify or advise the WIARNG of his whereabouts or provide a reason for his failure to participate.  He failed to acknowledge attempts to clarify his status on several occasions.

On 7 November 2000, after repeated warnings, Unit Order 0312-002, 32nd Military Police Company, WIARNG reduced him to pay grade E-3 for inefficiency. 

On 7 November 2000, the unit commander submitted a request for the separation/discharge/transfer of the applicant under National Guard Regulation 600-200, chapter 8, based on his accrual of 12 AWOLs and failure to respond to any contact attempts by the unit.

On 10 November 2000, the request was approved and the applicant was discharged from the Army National Guard under the above-cited regulation with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

On 23 November 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board found his discharge to be proper and equitable and denied his request for upgrade.

Army Regulation 135-91 (Service Obligation, Methods of Fulfillment, Participation Requirements and Enforcement Procedures) indicates, in pertinent part, that a member is an unsatisfactory participant when nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills occurs during a 1-year period.
National Guard Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management) indicates at paragraph 8-26(g) that individuals can be separated for being an unsatisfactory participant.  

Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.

DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, 

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  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 the preceding requirement.

4.  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

__aao___  __mmh___  _kah___ DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001059244	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020129	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.