Application Receipt Date: 060323 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: 000425 Chapter: 8-27f AR: NGR 600-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Participant RE: SPD: NA Unit/Location: HHC 891st Engineer Bn Iola, KS 66749-2817 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: 770120 Current ENL Date: 990530 Current ENL Term: 4 Years 8 months 24 days Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 10 Mos, 25 Days item 10a on NGB Form 22, net service this period is incorrect, should read 00 yrs 10 mos 25 days. Total Service: 03 Yrs, 10 Mos, 25 Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA-960530-000529/HD Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 13B10 Cannon Crewmember GT: 116 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Korea Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM, AGCM, ASR, OSR V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant claims he completed under graduate and graduate degrees and is currently employed as a mental health professional for the University of Missouri. 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 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 8-27f, NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participation with a characterization of service of honorable and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of RE "3." Evidence of record shows that on 30 May 2000, State Of Kansas, Office Of The Adjutant General, Kansas Army National Guard, Topeka, KS, Orders 093-012, discharged the applicant from the Army National Guard and assigned him to the U.S. Army Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM) to complete his military service obligation, effective: 25 April 2000. 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 issue and documents he submitted, the analyst recommend that 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 Kansas Army National Guard and transfer to the U.S. Army Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM). 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 8-27f, NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participation with a characterization of service of honorable and a reenlistment 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 a change to the narrative reason for separation. 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 was both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 070228 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 narrative 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: 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: 070307 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060004128 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages