Application Receipt Date: 061129 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See enclosed DD Form 293 submitted by the Applicant 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: NIF Date: NIF Discharge Received: GD Date: 921201 Chapter: 8-27g NGR: 600-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Participation RE: RE-3 SPD: NA Unit/Location: Co A (S&T), 29th Spt Bn, HIARNG, Honolulu, Hawaii 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: 690711 Current ENL Date: 910205 Current ENL Term: 8 Years Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 09Mos, 27Days Total Service: 01 Yrs, 09Mos, 27Days Previous Discharges: USAR 910221-910802/UNC Highest Grade: E-2 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 63B10/Light Wheel Vehicle Mechanic GT: NIF EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ASR, NDSM V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: None VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The applicant's complete facts and circumstances that led to the applicant's separation from the army are not part of the available records; however the record does contain a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service). His NGB Form 22 indicates that he was discharged under the provisions of Paragraph 8-27g, NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participation, with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions, and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of "3". This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the analyst presumes government regulatory in the discharge process. The evidence of record further shows that on 4 December 1992, State of Hawaii, Department of Defense, Office of the Adjutant General, Honolulu Hawaii, Orders 233-012, discharged the applicant from the Army National Guard, effective 1 December 1992, with an general under honorable conditions discharge and assigned him to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement), St Louis, Missouri to complete his statutory 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 records for the period of enlistment under review, and the issue he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not contained in the available records. On 4 December the State of Hawaii, Department of Defense, Office of the Adjutant General, Honolulu Hawaii, discharged the applicant from the Army National Guard and as a Reserve of the Army, effective 1 December 1992, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The record contains a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service). It indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Paragraph 8-26g(3), NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participant, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions, and a Reenlistment Eligibility Code of RE 3. Therefore, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service remains both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 10 December 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 Case report reviewed and verified by: Gloria Blake, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: Other: RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060016548 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 4 pages