IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 August 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140006392 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. Presiding Officer I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case. THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND STATEMENT: 1. The Counsel requests an upgrade of the applicant’s uncharacterized discharge to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. 2. Counsel states, in effect, the applicant was erroneously assigned an uncharacterized discharge and was entitled to remain on active duty until his medical issues were resolved. He contends that the applicant served a total of three years; therefore, the applicant was not on entry level status. Counsel states that the discharge was unlawful. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 9 April 2014 b. Discharge Received: Uncharacterized c. Date of Discharge: 29 July 2009 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Failure to attend IET (phase I or phase II) NGR 600-200, Chapter 8-35d(4), N/A, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: Spt Co, 2d Bn, 20th SFG, Jackson, MS f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 25 July 2006/8 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 3 years, 5 days h. Total Service: 3 years, 5 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: ADT, 061002-061216/NIF (Concurrent Service) k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: None m. GT Score: NIF n. Education: Masters Degree o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: None r. Administrative Separation Board: N/A s. Performance Ratings: N/A t. Counseling Statements: NIF u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG) on 25 July 2005, for a period of 8 years. He was 33 years old at the time of entry and a college graduate. He completed 3 years and 5 days of creditable military service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Jackson, MS. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record shows that on 21 July 2009, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 8, AR 135-178, by reason of failure to enter IADT within 24 months of enlistment. 2. Based on the above, the unit commander recommended an uncharacterized discharge and advised the applicant of his rights. 3. On 21 July 2009, the applicant waived his right to consult with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and did not submit a statement on his own behalf. The commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. 4. The record indicates that on 5 August 2009, Mississippi Military Department, The Adjutant General’s Office, Jackson, Mississippi, Orders Number 217-844, discharged the applicant from the ARNG and the Reserve of the Army, effective 29 July 2009, with an uncharacterized discharge. 5. The record contains a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service). It indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200, Chapter 8-35d(4), for failing to attend IET (phase I and II) within 24 months, with a characterization of service of uncharacterized and an RE code of 3. 6. On 2 January 2014, The Adjutant General (TAG), Mississippi National Guard, reviewed the applicant’s request for a change in his discharge and denied the request. The TAG indicated that at the time of separation, the applicant did not qualify to go before a medical or physical evaluation board. Further, the TAG specifically disapproved the following in the applicant’s request: a. His discharge, dated 5 August 2009, be declared null and void. b. He be administratively placed in a reserve status. c. He be directed into the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (APDES) for disability processing. d. He be awarded all compensation, benefits and allowances. 7. The applicant’s record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: Discharge Order Number 217-844, dated 5 August 2009, Mississippi Military Department, The Adjutant General’s Office, Jackson, Mississippi, discharged the applicant from the ARNG and Reserve of the Army effective 29 July 2009. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: Counsel provided a DD Form 293, dated 5 September 2013, signed by the applicant, with all stated enclosures, a self-authored statement by his counsel detailing the applicant’s contentions, dated 5 September 2013, and a DD Form 214 covering the period of service under review. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: None provided with the application. REGULATORY AUTHORITY: 1. National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 and Army Regulation 135-178 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 8-26(n) of that regulation provides in pertinent part that individuals can be separated for failing to report to IADT phase 1 or 2. 2. For ARNGUS and USAR Soldiers, entry-level status begins upon enlistment in the ARNG or USAR. For Soldiers ordered to IADT for one continuous period, it terminates 180 days after beginning training. For Soldiers ordered to IADT for the split or alternate training option, it terminates 90 days after beginning Phase II advanced individual training (AIT). Soldiers completing Phase I BT or basic combat training (BCT) remain in entry-level status until 90 days after beginning Phase II. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge and a change to the narrative reason for discharge was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, his military records, the documents and the issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. 2. The record confirms that the applicant's discharge was appropriate and was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, the uncharacterized description of service accurately reflects the applicant's overall record of service. An uncharacterized discharge is neither positive nor negative and it is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier's military service. It merely means that the Soldier has not been in the Army long enough for his or her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise. 3. The separation authority approved the applicant's discharge as entry-level status, with the description of service as uncharacterized. NGR 600-200 provides in pertinent part, that a Soldier is in entry-level status 90 days after the beginning of the second period of active duty training (ADT) if the Soldier is ordered to ADT under a program that splits the training into two or more separate periods of active duty. The purpose of the entry-level status is to provide the Soldier a probationary period. 4. The record of evidence confirms the applicant completed phase I of ADT on 16 December 2006. However, the applicant was released from OCS on 26 May 2007, failing to complete phase II of his IET within a 24 month period. There is no evidence to support the applicant completed the minimum training as required. Therefore, the applicant was considered to be in an entry level status at the date of notification as to the initiation of separation proceedings. 5. Counsel provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous, arbitrary or capricious in nature. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. 6. Counsel contends the applicant was erroneously given an uncharacterized discharge and should have received an honorable characterization of service. However, the applicant was considered to be in an entry level status because he did not successfully complete phase II of his IET within the required time period. Soldiers are considered to be in an entry level status 90 days after the beginning of the second period of ADT if the Soldier is ordered to ADT under a program that splits the training into two or more separate periods of active duty 7. Counsel contention the applicant’s discharge was improper because he was not referred for a medical or physical evaluation board is without merit. The medical conditions the applicant suffered while on active duty does not support a conclusion that these conditions rendered the applicant unfit for further service at the time of his discharge processing. The available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical condition during his discharge processing that would have warranted his separation processing through medical channels. 8. Counsel further contends the applicant’s discharge was improper because he was entitled to remain on active duty until his medical issues were resolved or he was discharged through APDES. However, the service record does not support Counsel’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge should have been the result of any medical condition. Further, the record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication. 9. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 10. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 8 August 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? No Counsel: Yes Board Vote: Character Change: 0 No Change: 5 Reason Change: 0 No Change: 5 (Board member names available upon request) Board Action Directed: Issue a new NGB Form 22: No Change Characterization to: No Change Change Reason to: No Change Change Authority for Separation: No Change Change RE Code to: No Change Grade Restoration to: NA Other: NA Legend: AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record FG - Field Grade IADT – Initial Active Duty Training RE - Reentry AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NA - Not applicable SCM- Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial CG - Company Grade Article 15 HD - Honorable Discharge OAD - Ordered to Active Duty UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge CID - Criminal investigation Department MP – Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont) AR20140006392 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1