Applicant Name: Application Receipt Date: 2009/01/05 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 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: NIF Date: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 051207 Chapter: 8-36x AR: NGR 600-200 Reason: NIF RE: NIF SPD: NIF Unit/Location: C Co 48th BDE, SPC TRP BN, Ft Gillem, GA 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: 21 Current ENL Date: 030711 Current ENL Term: 6 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 2 Yrs, 4Mos, 8Days ????? Total Service: 2 Yrs, 4Mos, 8Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA 030721-040224/ HD Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 31U/Signal Support Systems Specialist GT: NIF EDU: GED Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NIF V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Newnan, GA Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted by the applicant. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence shows the applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army. The record indicates that on 15 July 2007, The Adjutant General, State of Georgia, 5019 Highway 42, Ellenwood, Georgia, Orders 196-009, discharged the applicant from the Army National Guard, effective 7 December 2005, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 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 8-36x of that regulation provides in pertinent part that a request for discharge in lieu of a court-martial to adjudge a punitive discharge. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge may be appropriate with RE3. 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 Georgia Army National Guard and a Reserve of the Army. However, the record does contain Orders Number 196-009, dated on 15 July 2007, discharging the applicant from the Army National Guard, effective 7 December 2005, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 8, paragraph 8-36x, NGR 600-200, with a characterization of service of under other than 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 contentions; however, the evidence was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review. If the applicant desires to reenlist, he should contact the local recruiter to determine his eligibility to reenlist. Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes. Furthermore, the analyst determined that the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) does not contain all the specific documents that would indicate the reason for the separation action from the United States Army. If the applicant desires to appear before a personal appearance Board, the burden of proof remains with the former Soldier to provide the appropriate documents or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board’s consideration. 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: Date: 16 October 2009 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: None Exhibits Submitted: None 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 AR20090002096 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 2 pages