Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 080710 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See attached DD Form 293 and supporting 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: 050505 Chapter: NIF AR: 135-178 Reason: NIF RE: SPD: NIF Unit/Location: HQ, 88th Regional Readiness Command, Ft. Snelling, MN Time Lost: NIF Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 17 Current ENL Date: 020724 Current ENL Term: 08 Years USAR Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 09 Mos, 11 Days ????? Total Service: 02 Yrs, 09 Mos, 11 Days ????? Previous Discharges: ADT 030612-031126/HD Concurrent service Highest Grade: E3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 63W Wheel Veh Rpr GT: NIF EDU: NIF Overseas: NIF Combat: NIF Decorations/Awards: ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: South Saint Paul, MN Post Service Accomplishments: See attached DD Form 293 and supporting documents submitted by the Applicant. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence shows the Aplicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the United States Army Reserve. The record indicates that on 5 May 2005, Department of the Army, Headquarters, 88th Regional Readiness Command, Fort Snelling, Minnesota, Orders 05-125-00139, discharged the Applicant from the United States Army Reserve, effective 5 May 2005, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. In the DD Form 293 submitted by the Applicant, he makes reference to being discharged for "missing too many drills". b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 135-178 provides for the separation of members of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve when it is determined that a service member is unqualified for further military service by reason of unsatisfactory participation. 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. An enlisted member separated for misconduct which includes unsatisfactory participation will normally be furnished a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions in accordance with Army Regulation 135-178. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of the Applicant’s available military records, and the issue submitted with the application as to the propriety of the discharge, the analyst determined that the Applicant’s available record of service during the period under review as a U.S. Army Reserve Soldier is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army Reserve. However, the Applicant’s record does contain a properly constituted Order which was authenticated by the appropriate military authority. This document identifies the characterization of the discharge and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process. 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 Applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the Applicant’s service mitigated the type of discharge he received from the U.S. Army Reserve. Therefore, the analyst determined the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief.????? VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 24 April 2009 Location: Washington, DC 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 2 No change 3 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: No Change RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: No Change ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20080011717 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 2 pages