IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 March 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220003653 APPLICANT REQUESTS: upgrade of his general discharge in the Army National Guard (ARNG) to a fully honorable discharge. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Congressional Correspondence * Statement * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) * Multiple Counseling Forms * Letter from national Personnel Records Center * Personal Note from the Governor * Certificate of Achievement * Letter of Appreciation FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states he had a meeting with Captain who was his company commander at the time. This meeting happened in November 1990. Captain started the meeting off by saying that “I was a good person and that the military is made for some people. Some people it is not. He said, that's why I'm going to let you get out of the Guard.” He told him that he can come drill the next month and get paid for it, or he can come to turn in his equipment. He did not understand why the captain was letting him out when his time was up in January 1991. The captain told him to sign some documents that had no blanks filled in. Being young and not knowing his rights and not asking questions, he signed documents to get him dishonorably discharged. He left the Guard having an understanding that he had an honorable discharge. He has been completing paperwork for over 20 years thinking I was honorably discharged. He feels strongly that he was tricked into signing those papers, he would have fought this knowing he was getting out in January 1991. He found out about the dishonorable discharge when he requested his records, he noticed in his records that some documents were not signed. One can see that his name was forged on a document. One can also see that dates were put in locations where he should put dates. He strongly feels that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable because of the process in which it was done. 3. The applicant’s complete service records are not available for review. An exhaustive search was conducted to locate his service/Army National Guard records, but they could not be found. However, the applicant submitted sufficient documents for the Board to conduct a fair and impartial review of his case. 4. Review of the applicant’s service records shows: a. He enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG) on 12 November 1986. He entered active duty or training (ADT) on 12 January 1987 and completed training for award of military occupational specialty 64C, Motor Transport Operator. b. He was released from ADT on 15 May 1987 for completion of required active service and transferred to the control of his State ARNG. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 4 months and 4 days of active service. c. After his release from ADT, he was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 11th Signal Battalion, SCARNG. While with this unit, he was recognized as follows: (1) Certificate of Achievement for Annual Training 1989. (2) Personal Message from The Adjutant General of to all personnel who participated in Operation Hugo. (3) Letter of commendation from the company commander to participants of Operation Hugo. (4) Governor’s Unit Citation to HHC, 11th Signal Battalion and other units. d. On 6 May 1990, he was counseled by his platoon sergeant for not having a driver license and for being absent without leave. The platoon sergeant indicated that “Rehabilitation seems to be of no avail; recommend reduction to private/E-2.” He was previously counseled regarding his unexcused absence and as of the date of this counseling, he has 5 unexcused absences. e. On 19 August 1990, he was counseled for failing all rehabilitation efforts, lack of initiative to comply with recommendations to rehabilitate himself and to perform in his MOS. The counseling also states he would be turned over to the Commander and First Sergeant for further disciplinary action as is necessary, and that the counselor’s recommendation is that he should be reduced to the next lower rank of PV2 and be removed from the S-1 section and/or discharged from the SCARNG. f. The complete facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge from the ARNG are not available. However, his NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) shows he was discharged from the ARNG on 3 February 1991, in accordance with National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), paragraph 8-26(o) (unsatisfactory participation) with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. This form shows: * he completed 4 years, 1 month, and 22 days of ARNG service * he was assigned Reentry Code 3 * he was awarded or authorized Army Service Ribbon and Humanitarian Service Medal g. There is no evidence the applicant petitioned the State Adjutant General for review of his discharge. h. There is no evidence the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. 5. By regulation (AR 15-185), the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. 6. By regulation (AR 135-91), a Soldier is an unsatisfactory participant when he or she attains 9 or more unexcused absences from scheduled inactive duty training during a 1- year period. Unless an absence is authorized, a Soldier failing to attend a scheduled drill will be charged with an unexcused absence. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the counsel’s statement and the applicant's record of service, documents submitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensive and standard review based on law, policy and regulation. Upon review of the applicant’s petition and available military records, the Board determined the applicant has not exhausted all his administrative remedies regarding his discharge from the National Guard. Evidence in the record show the applicant had unsatisfactory participant based on 9 or more unexcused absences from training. The Board found insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s contentions to upgrade of his general discharge in the Army National Guard (ARNG) to a fully honorable discharge. Based on the preponderance of evidence the Board denied relief. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING X X X DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. 3. Army Regulation 135-91 (Service Obligations, Methods of Fulfillment, Participation Requirements, and Enforcement Procedures) provides that a Soldier is an unsatisfactory participant when he or she attains 9 or more unexcused absences from scheduled inactive duty training during a 1-year period. Unless an absence is authorized, a Soldier failing to attend a scheduled drill will be charged with an unexcused absence. When absence involves a Multiple Unit Training Assembly (MUTA), or any portion of a MUTA, the charge will be one unexcused absence for each 4-hour period not attended, but not to exceed four unexcused absences. Unexcused absences remain charged to the Soldier on reassignment or reenlistment in another Reserve Component unit. 4. Army Regulation 135-178 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve – Enlisted Administrative Separations), sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted ARNG and USAR personnel. It states "Unsatisfactory Participation in the Ready Reserve" the Soldier's characterization of service normally will be under other than honorable conditions, but characterization as under honorable conditions (general) discharge may be warranted when significant negative aspects of the Soldier's conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the Soldier's military record. a. An honorable characterization of service is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier'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 clearly inappropriate. b. A general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service is warranted when significant negative aspects of the Soldier's conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the Soldier's military record. 5. National Guard Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management) establishes standards, policies, and procedures for the management of enlisted ARNG soldiers. a. Chapter 8 contains policies and procedures for the separation/discharge of enlisted personnel from the ARNG. Paragraph 8-26 provides the procedures for discharging members from the State ARNG and/or from the Reserve of the Army. Paragraph 8-26(o) contains guidance on separating members for unsatisfactory participation. b. It further states that members separating under this provision of the regulation will be assigned an eligibility code of RE-3. Table 8-1 contains the applicable definitions for RE codes. It states, in pertinent part, that RE-3 applies to members whose disqualification allows for eligibility for reenlistment with a waiver. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220003653 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1