Application Receipt Date: 060117 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Yes No Tender Offer: ????? See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Original Character of Discharge Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 920602 Chapter: 8 AR: NGR 600-200 Reason: NIF RE: SPD: NA Unit/Location: Co A 42nd Main Spt Bn NYARNG, Brooklyn, NY 11221 Time Lost: NIF Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 690127 Current ENL Date: OAD/920219 Current ENL Term: 17 weeks Years ????? Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 07 Mos, 16 Days ????? Total Service: 00 Yrs, 07 Mos, 16 Days ????? Previous Discharges: ARNG-910516-920218/NA (Concurrent Service) Highest Grade: E1 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 76P00 GT: 95 EDU: GED Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NIF V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: 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 his discharge from the Army. However, the record does contain a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service in the Army National Guard of New York), which the applicant was unavailable for signature. It indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of NGR 600-200 and VOTAG date confirmed 2 June 1992, with an uncharacterized separation of service and a reenlistment eligibility ((RE) code of "3." On 10 June 1992, Office Of The Adjutant General, State Of New York, Latham, New York, Orders 112-25, discharge of the applicant from the Army National Guard effective: 2 June 1992. 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. 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, and the issues he submitted, the analyst recommends relief be denied in this case. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the State of New York Army National Guard. However, the record does contain a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service in the Army National Guard of New York), which the applicant was unavailable for signature. It indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of NGR 600-200 and VOTAG date confirmed 2 June 1992, with an uncharacterized separation of service and a reenlistment eligibility ((RE) code of "3." This document identifies the characterization of the discharge and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process. 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. A Soldier is in entry-level status (ELS) for the first 180 days of continuous active duty. The purpose of the entry-level status is to provide the Soldier a probationary period. Army Regulation 635-200 also provides, except in cases of serious misconduct, that a Soldier’s service will be uncharacterized when his separation is initiated while the Soldier is in entry level status. Furthermore, for Soldiers in entry-level status, a general discharge is not authorized under ELS conditions. Therefore, the narrative reason for discharge and the characterization of service remains both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 061206 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA VIII. Board Decision The discharge was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The characterization of service was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The narrative reasons were: Equitable Inequitable DRB voting record: Change No change (Character) Change No change (Reason) (Board member names available upon request) IX. 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 not to change it. Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Kenneth McFarley, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: None Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: None XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 061208 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060000769 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages