Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2009/05/07 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states: "I received a letter from my unit stating that I was being discharged for excessive absence from drill. This was a mistake so immediatly contacted my unit. I had missed multiple drill meetings but I had supplied my unit with excuses from my Doctor. She explained to me that it didn't matter because our unit was getting ready to deploy and I was not deployable due to the medications I was on for depression/anxiety. She said that it was ok...it wasn't going to be "dishonorable". At this time I thought that meant it would be honorable and when I recieved my discharge orders I did not know the difference. I was then ordered to pay back benefits I recieved for education and am now being denied other benefits for education. I now know that I should not have accepted that type of discharge and would like for it to be changed." She provides one document for the Board"s consideration. 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: Not in File (NIF) Discharge Received: Date: 040730 Chapter: 13 AR: 135-178 Reason: Unsatisfactory Participation RE: SPD: NIF Unit/Location: 18th Fld Hospital, Det 1, Huntington, WV 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: 000920 Current ENL Term: 8 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 10Mos, 10Days ????? Total Service: 03 Yrs, 10Mos, 10Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: NIF GT: NIF EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NIF V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: W. Portsmouth, WV Post Service Accomplishments: None listed 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 her discharge from the Army Reserve. The record indicates that on 30 July 2004, DA HQS, 99th Regional Readiness Command, Coraopolis, PA, Orders number 04-212-00004, discharged the applicant from the Army Reserve, effective 30 July 2004, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 135-178 governs procedures covering enlisted personnel management of the Army Reserve. Paragraph 13-1 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. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate, however, a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. 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 and document submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. On 10 July 2004, DA HQS, 99th Regional Readiness Command, Coraopolis, PA, discharged the applicant from the Army Reserve, effective 30 July 2004, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. All the facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not contained in the available records and the analyst presumed government regularity in the discharge process. The applicant contends she was being discharged for excessive absences from unit drills and this was a mistake because she had provided a statement from her doctor. Further, she contends that she suffered from depression and anxiety and was non-deployable. The applicant's contentions were carefully considered. However, the analyst is unable to determine whether his contentions have merit because the facts and circumstances leading to the discharge are unknown. 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. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will still be her responsibility to meet the burden of proof since the evidence is not available in the official record. n view of the foregoing, the analyst presumed government regularity in the discharge process and recommends to the Board to deny relief. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 5 March 2010 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: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20090008170 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages