MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            6 January 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-06293A
				   AR1998014525

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Gerald E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas D. Howard, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Member	
	Mr. Curtis W. Barbee		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Reconsideration of his previous application to correct his records by issuing him two Certificates of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect that the Board’s granting a complete and unconditional separation from military service warrants the issuance of separate DD Form 214s for his two prior periods of service.  He states that the current situation does nothing to improve his employability and that it does not comply with his original request.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 22 April 1998 .

The applicant’s 11 August 1998 notice of disagreement with the memos for record from the Army Review Boards Agency (St. Louis) is the only evidence or documentation submitted in concert with his request for reconsideration. 

The applicant’s record shows that he had uninterrupted active duty from 13 September 1977 to 2 July 1992.

Army Regulation 635-5 sets forth the policy and provisions for the preparation and issuance of separation documents.  In effect, it states that, as of 1 October 1979, issuance of a DD Form 214 is not appropriate when the sole purpose is for immediate reenlistment. 

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  While the Board changed the applicant’s record to show eligibility for an unconditional separation on 26 March 1980 and/or 26 December 1985, he was not actually released or discharged from active duty on either of those dates.  Being eligible for discharge and being discharged are two distinct and separate events and as such are treated significantly differently.  Hence, issuance of the requested additional DD Form 214s is inappropriate.

2.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that the corrective action taken by the Board does nothing to benefit his chances for employment.  The applicant fails to understand that it was not the intent of the Board to correct his record in such a manner as to expunge his record of misconduct.  The action as taken by the Board to grant a complete and unconditional separation is for the sole purpose of placing the applicant in a position of being eligible for VA benefits for his periods of honorable service.  Further the Board specifically denied any greater relief.

3.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___TDH__ __LLS__  ___CWB_  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-06293/AR1998014525	
SUFFIX	A	
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	1999/01/06	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES        1.	100.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.