Application Receipt Date: 061114 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See applicant's attached 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: 030125 Chapter: 8-26K NGR: 600-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Participation RE: SPD: NA Unit/Location: Company E, 1st Battalion, 125th Infantry (Mech), Big Rapids, MI Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 700205 Current ENL Date: 010517 Current ENL Term: 01 Years (The record is void of an extention or reenlistment document that would have taken the applicant's ETS past 020516). Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 08Mos, 09Days ????? Total Service: 10 Yrs, 02Mos, 11Days ????? Previous Discharges: USN-881024-890809/NA ARNG-930831-941221/HD USARCG (AT) 941222-950124/NA ARNG-950125-970918/GD USARCG-970919-010516/NA Highest Grade: E2 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 91W10 (Health Care Specialist) GT: NIF EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: None Listed in Record 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 facts and circumstances leading to the applicant’s discharge from the Army National Guard and as a Reserve of the Army, 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 8-26k, NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participant with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions and a reentry eligibility (RE) code of "3". The record also contains a discharge order number 043-028, from the State of Michigan Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, Lansing, Michigan dated 12 February 2003. The order shows the applicant, was discharged with a charcterization of service of under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of NGR 600-200, Para 8-26k, by reason of misconduct/absent without leave and reduced in grade from E3 to E1. 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 8-26k 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 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 Michigan Army National Guard. However, the applicant's NGB Form 22, shows he was discharged from the Army National Guard under the provisions of Chapter 8 of NGR 600-200 paragraph 8-26(k) which shows that individuals can be separated for being an unsatisfactory participant, and Army Regulation 135-91 which states that a member is an unsatisfactory participant when nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills occur during a 1 year period. 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 characterization of service and the narrative reason for discharge were both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 18 April 2007 Location: Chicago, IL 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: Eric S. Moore, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 8 May 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060016053 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages