Application Receipt Date: 060119 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents. 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: 020601 Chapter: 8-27f AR: NGR 600-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Participant RE: SPD: NA Unit/Location: B Company 579th Engineer Bn Eureka, CA 96067-2014 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 720624 Current ENL Date: 060330 Current ENL Term: 3 Years ????? Current ENL Service: NIF Yrs, NIFMos, NIFDays ????? Total Service: NIF Yrs, NIFMos, NIFDays ????? Previous Discharges: Navy-000000-961120/HD Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 31C10 Radio Opr/Maintainer GT: NIF EDU: NIF Overseas: NIF Combat: NIF Decorations/Awards: NIF V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant is currently serving in the California Army National Guard. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The facts and circumstances leading to the applicant’s discharge are not contained in the available records. However, the evidence of record shows that, On 21 November 2002, State Of California, Office Of The Adjutant General, Sacramento, CA, Orders 325-1011, discharge of the applicant from the Army National Guard under the provisions of Chapter 8-26f, NGR 600-200, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions, and a reentry eligibility (RE) code of "3" and assigned him to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) to complete his statutory obligation, effective: 1 June 2002. 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 8-27(f) 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. 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 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 California Army National Guard and transfer to the United States Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement). However, Orders 325-1011, discharge of the applicant from the Army National Guard under the provisions of Chapter 8-26f, NGR 600-200, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions, and a reentry eligibility (RE) code of "3." This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process. The analyst noted the applicant’s contentions; however, the evidence was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review. 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. Therefore, the narrative reason for discharge and the characterization of service were 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 AR20060000838 Applicant Name: ______________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 5 pages