Applicant Name: Application Receipt Date: 2008/04/30 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents submitted by the applicant II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Tender Offer: NA See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Discharge Under Review Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 021208 Chapter: 8-26e(2) AR: NGR 600-200 Reason: Acts or Patterns of Misconduct RE: SPD: NA Unit/Location: C Co 122 Engr Rear SC, Graniteville, SC Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 18 Current ENL Date: 020517 Current ENL Term: 8 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 06Mos, 22Days ????? Total Service: 00 Yrs, 06Mos, 22Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-2 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: None GT: 99 EDU: HS GRAD Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: None V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Wagener, SC Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The specific facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge from the State of South Carolina 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 8-26e(2), NGR 600-200, by acts or patterns of misconduct, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions and a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of "3." On 4 April 2003, State of South Carolina, Office of the Adjutant General, Columbia, SC, Orders, number 094-838 dated 4 April 2003, discharged the applicant from the Army National Guard, effective date: 8 December 2002, 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 covering enlisted personnel of the Army National Guard. Chapter 8 of NGR 600-200 covers, in pertinent part, discharge and separation of enlisted personnel for misconduct due to use of illegal drugs. Chapter 8, paragraph 26e(2) states that commanders will process all Soldiers for discharge identified as having abused illegal drugs for separation per AR 135-178, Chapter 12. 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 found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the State of South Carolina Army National Guard. However, the record does contain a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), which indicates that the applicant was unavailable for signature. This document identifies the reason and characterization of the service and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 8, paragraph 8-26e(2), NGR 600-200, by reason of acts or a pattern of misconduct with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 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. The analyst noted the applicant’s issues; however, the evidence was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review. In view of the foregoing, 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: Date: 13 February 2009 Location: Washington, D.C. Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA VIII. 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 to deny relief. IX. Board Decision XI. Certification Signature Board Vote: Approval Authority: Character - Change 0 No change 5 Reason - Change 0 No change 5 (Board member names available upon request) EDGAR J. YANGER Colonel, U.S. Army X. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: No Change Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20080007909 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages