1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 28 July 2017 b. Date Received: 21 August 2017 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and to change the narrative reason for discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, was unjustly discharged. The applicant was denied the right to an administrative separation board. The narrative for discharge should be "completed service obligation." The counsel on behalf of the applicant, further contends, that the determination of the applicant's unsatisfactory participation, the conduct of the separation process, and the ultimate separation were both unreasonable and unfair. The applicant's service was without incident, until being informed about the unit would be disbanding the applicant, and when the applicant found it difficult to perform the drills in San Antonio, Texas, while living in Abilene. Because of the distance and expense, the applicant made arrangements to drill with a recruiting battalion. With coordination from the unit, the applicant performed alternate drills in Abilene. However, the unit, 2-131, would often not accept the drills, despite the drills being coordinated between the recruiters and the unit's Readiness NCO. The applicant started receiving unexcused absence letters that included an annual drill in May 2010. The applicant received notice two days prior to the report date, to attend an annual training at Fort Hood, Texas. The applicant did not have sufficient time to give notice to the employer. Although the applicant contacted the admin NCO to resolve the problem, it was to no avail. Given the insufficient time to prepare for travel financially and to give notice to the employer, the applicant did not attend the annual training. Thereby, the applicant was declared an unsatisfactory participant. Despite, the alternate drills the applicant performed, they were not counted and the applicant received additional unexcused absences. Ultimately, the applicant was processed for separation, without being able to present the case at a separation board hearing. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 4 September 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Unsatisfactory Participation / NGR 600-200, Paragraph 6-35j / NA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 20 April 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF, but according to the commander's report memorandum, dated 1 September 2010 (9 July 2010, per applicant's documentary evidence) (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: For the applicant being AWOL numerous times from drills and the 2010 Annual Training. The applicant's first AWOL occurred on 5-7 February 2010, drill (MUTA 4). The next month, the applicant missed the entire Annual Training (14-28 May 2010) and made no attempt to contact the unit despite having an arrangement for transport. The applicant had called two days prior to the start of annual training to say that he could not be present because he could not afford the gas from Abilene to San Antonio. Two days before the Annual Training began, on 12 May 2010, the unit Training NCO, SGT G. called and emailed the applicant with the finalized transport details. Because the applicant lives in Abilene, and Detachment 2, 132d FSC has a Soldier who lives in Abilene, HHB 2-131 FA contacted SSG G., the FSC DET 2 Readiness NCO, to make arrangements to pick up the Soldier for Annual Training at the local Armory at 0530 hours on 14 May 2010. The applicant failed to appear for movement and he did not contact anyone. On 14 May 201O, at 1138 hours, SGT G. again called and emailed the applicant to advise him that he was now AWOL and to contact the unit as soon as possible. The unit did not hear from the applicant, until the July drill. The following month, the applicant again missed drill (12-13 June 2010), and he again made no attempt to contact anyone in his chain of command regarding his continued nonattendance. The applicant's section sergeant, SGT M., as well as, the HHB 2-131 FA (MLRS) Readiness NCO, SFC J., and the Training NCO, SGT G., all made numerous attempts to contact the applicant by phone and email. The applicant did not respond to any of the attempts and failed to contact his unit for any of the makeup drills. Finally, on 24 July 2010, the applicant reported to drill late (at 1100 hours) in civilian clothes when drill started at 0800 hours in ACUs or APFUs. SFC J. counseled the applicant shortly after he arrived for his past AWOLS, unresponsiveness to multiple attempts at contacting him, tardiness, and failing to report in the proper uniform. The applicant admitted to avoiding calls from the unit. By his actions, the applicant has showed a lack of willingness to adhere to the policies and code of Texas Army National Guard. Therefore, the commander recommended that the applicant be administratively discharged. (Per applicant's documentary evidence, notification, dated 9 July 2010, "for unsatisfactory participation - failure to report to active duty"; in that that applicant "failed to report for annual training 14-28 May 2010," and he was "AWOL from drill 5-7 February and 12-13 June 2010.") (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (20 August 2010, per applicant's documentary evidence) (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (The applicant had less than six years of service on the date of the initiation of the separation proceedings, and that the recommendation for an under other than honorable conditions discharge warranted a right to an administrative separation board hearing; however, there is no record of a referral to an administrative separation board and the GCMCA convening authority directed a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.) (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 20 April 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 19 June 2006 / 8-year MSO (ARNGUS enlistment) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / HS Graduate / 119 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68W10, Health Care Specialist / 5 years, 10 months, 2 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG (19 June 2006 to 30 June 2006) / NA IADT (31 July 2006 to 27 April 2007) / HD ARNG (28 April 2007 - Continuous Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / NA f. Awards and Decorations: ARCAM; NDSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Discharge Orders The Adjutant General of Illinois ARNG letter, dated 24 August 2018, in response to the applicant's request for relief, dated 30 August 2012, with its associated documents, shows that without further action, TAG referred the applicant for relief to ABCMR or ADRB. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: NIF / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 28 July 2017; Counsel-authored brief; and Table of Enclosure with its listed enclosures as Exhibits 1 through 39. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant's record of service indicates he has since enlisted in the Oklahoma Army National Guard /ARNGUS, and was honorably discharged upon his ETS date, and after completing two years and two months of service. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 and Army Regulation (AR) 135-178 govern procedures covering enlisted personnel of the Army National Guard. Chapter 6 of NGR 600-200 sets the policies, standards, and procedures for the separation of enlisted Soldiers from the ARNG/ARNGUS. The character of service for administrative separation is based on a determination reflecting a Soldier's military behavior and performance of duty during a specific period of service. At separation, characterization of service are authorized: Honorable, General (Under Honorable Conditions), and Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. The service of Soldiers in entry level status is normally described as uncharacterized. Separation with an uncharacterized description of service applies when separated in an entry-level status; or fraudulent entry, erroneous enlistment, reenlistment, void enlistment; or by being dropped from the rolls of the Army. Further, any of the types of characterization or description of service listed may be used in appropriate circumstances unless a limitation is set forth in section III of this chapter. Characterization of service as a result of administrative action is governed by this regulation and the service of Soldiers is either characterized or uncharacterized when they are separated from the ARNG. Army Regulation 135-178 provides the criteria for governing uncharacterized separations and the issuance of honorable, general (under honorable conditions), or under other than honorable conditions discharges. The regulation further authorizes separation with an uncharacterized description of service when separated in an entry level status. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and to change the narrative reason for his discharge. The applicant's available record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. After carefully examining the applicant's available military records, there are insufficient mitigating factors to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service or the merit of his issues. The available record and the applicant's submitted evidence confirm that his discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. His refusal to participate in unit drills and annual training brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By his actions, he risked a military career, marred the quality of his service, and ultimately caused his discharge from the Army National Guard. The applicant's record also contains a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), which was not authenticated by the applicant's signature and the separation authority's decision memorandum. The NGB Form 22 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of NGR 600-200, Chapter 6, paragraph 6-35j, by reason of Unsatisfactory Participation, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant would have been protected throughout the separation process. The applicant's numerous contentions of being unjustly discharged because he was denied his right to an administrative separation board, including the determination of the applicant's unsatisfactory participation, the conduct of his separation process, and the ultimate separation were both unreasonable and unfair, were carefully considered. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issues, further demonstrating that an error or injustice has occurred relative to his discharge. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further sufficient evidence has been provided with the request to upgrade the characterization of his discharge and to change the narrative reason for his discharge. Insofar as the applicant's contention that he was denied his right to an administrative separation board, the record of service reflects that the applicant had less than six years of service on the date of the initiation of the separation proceedings, and that the recommendation for an under other than honorable conditions discharge warranted a right to an administrative separation board hearing; however, there is no record of a referral to an administrative separation board and the GCMCA convening authority directed a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. Therefore, the rationale the applicant provided as the basis for what he believes was an unfair discharge is not supportable by the evidence contained in the available record and can only be viewed as speculative in nature. The applicant requests to change the reason for his discharge; however, the reason for the applicant's separation is governed by NGR 600-200 and AR 135-178, and as approved by the separation authority. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under those regulations. Based on the available record, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 4 September 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Issue a New Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NCO - Noncommissioned Officer SCM - Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial BH - Behavioral Health HD - Honorable Discharge NOS - Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP - Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS - Entry Level Status MST - Military Sexual Trauma PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA - Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20170016030 1