Application Receipt Date: 060519 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: 001002 Discharge Received: Date: 011119 Chapter: 8-27a AR: NGR 600-200, AR 135-178 Reason: Not Selected For Retention RE: SPD: NA Unit/Location: B Company 640th DASB El Cajon, CA 92020-3098 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): In the AGR Staff Judge Advocate memo, it states the applicant agreed to a Field Grade Article, However, said document NIF. Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 520702 Current ENL Date: 840807 Current ENL Term: 12 Years ext 6 years (960611) Current ENL Service: 17 Yrs, 03 Mos, 03 Days ????? Total Service: 24 Yrs, 02 Mos, 11 Days ????? Previous Discharges: ARNG-770829-780225/NA ADT-780226-780614/HD ARNG-780615-810415/NA USAR-810416-840806/GD Highest Grade: E6 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 63H30 Track Veh Repairer/92A30 Automated Logistics Spec GT: 100 EDU: 14 years Overseas: Panama Combat: None Decorations/Awards: AAM, ARCAM (4), HSM, AFRM, ARCOTR, CADAR (7), CAGCM (3), CACSM (2), CAEER, V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: A memo from the Department Of Veterans Affairs states the applicant completed the Ambulatory Substance Abuse Program/Rehabilitation Phase at the New York Harbor Healthcare System. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge from the State of California Army National Guard 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 8-26a, NGR 600-200, by reason of not selected for retention with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions and a Reenlistment Eligibility Code of RE "3." On 21 November 2001, the State Of California, Office Of The Adjutant General, Sacramento, CA, Orders 325-1039, discharged the applicant from the Army National Guard and assigned him to the USAR Control Group (The Retired Reserve), effective date: 9 November 2001, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. b. Legal Basis for Separation: National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 and Army Regulation 135-178 govern procedures for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve. Chapter 8 of NGR 600-200 covers, in pertinent part, reasons for discharge and separation of enlisted personnel from the State Army National Guard and as a Reserve of the Army. The regulation, defines misconduct by reason of one or more of the following: minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, abuse of illegal drugs, and conviction by civil authorities. 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 issue he submitted, the analyst recommend that 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, 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: 25 April 2007 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 andf 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: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 4 May 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060007092 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 5 pages