Application Receipt Date: 060309 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: 930701 Chapter: 8-27g AR: NGR 600-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Participant RE: SPD: NA Unit/Location: 641st QM Det Kettering, OH 45430 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: 691023 Current ENL Date: 890327 Current ENL Term: 8 Years ext 1 year (910723) Current ENL Service: 04 Yrs, 03 Mos, 05 Days ????? Total Service: 04 Yrs, 03 Mos, 05 Days ????? Previous Discharges: IADT-890608-891024/NA USARCG-891025-901128/NA IADT-901129-910612/NA (Concurrent Service) Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 77W10 Water Trmt Spec GT: 101 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: SWA Combat: SWA (901129-910612) Decorations/Awards: ARCAM, NDSM, SWASM w/3 BSS, ASR, SA KLM, OHBCTR/OHAWM V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant claims he has been employed with the University of Dayton Police Department for about eight years and received several written commendations. 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), which the applicant was unavailable for signature . It indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Paragraph 8-27g, NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participant, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions, and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) Code of "3." On 18 June 1993, the State of Ohio, Adjutant General's Department, Columbus, Ohio, Orders 117-83, discharged the applicant from the Army National Guard, effective date: 1 July 1993, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge and reassigned him to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement), St Louis, Missouri to complete his military service obligation. 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(g) 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 issue and documents he submitted, the analyst recommends relief be granted in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable. This recommendation was made after full consideration of his faithful and honorable service, as well as his record of misconduct. The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable. While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the analyst found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service to include his combat service, the time that has elasped since his discharge and his post service accomplishments mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. However, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 070124 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 characterization of service was too harsh and as a result it is now ineqiutable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable. However, the Board determined that reason for 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: Thru: Chief, National Guard Bureau Date: 24 January 2007 To: Adjutant General, State of Ohio The Army Discharge Review Board, established under the provisions of Section 30, Public Law 346, 78th Congress, 22 June 1944 and codified as Title 10, United States Code, Section 1553, in the case of the applicant named in Part I recommends that the applicant be considered for a change of his discharge by the Adjutant General, State of Ohio , with issuance of a new NGB Form 22, as follows: ( X ) Change characterization of discharge to fully Honorable. 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: 070126 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060003407 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages