MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           26 May 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC96-07551A
				   AR1998012291

	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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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 his earlier application to correct his records by upgrading his discharge and changing his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code. 

APPLICANT STATES:   In effect, that after he was acquitted by a general court-he was returned to his former command where he was mistreated by the battery commander, who; harassed him, called him a murderer and treated him as if he were a criminal. He was denied any opportunity to obtain counseling in order to deal with the post-traumatic stress caused by being an eye witness to murder.  He submits a copy the record of the 8 September 1994 trial wherein he was found not guilty as an accessory to murder.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memoranda prepared to reflect the Board's previous considerations of the case on 19 march 1997 (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant’s contentions constitute new argument which requires Board consideration.

He was counseled on 20 April 1993 for failure to get a haircut in an incident that actually constituted willful disobedience of an NCO.

In May 1993 his base driving privileges were suspended because he was driving with expired registration.

On 1 June 1993 he was counseled for “failure to follow instructions,” another instance of willful disobedience.

He received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, UCMJ  on 23 June 1993 for dishonorable failure to pay just debts.

He received counseling for missing formation on 8 July and NJP for AWOL from his unit and missing formation on 9 July 1993.

The applicant was counseled on 22 July 1993 for failure to report and wearing an  unacceptable uniform.

On 4 October 1993 he was counseled for failure to secure his issued field gear.

He was counseled on 9 December 1993 for failure to pay just debts.

On 15 February 1994 a local bar to reenlistment was initiated  for three instances of failure to pay just debts.

Following a Class A uniform inspection on 22 February 1994 the applicant was counseled for unsatisfactory shoes, haircut and belt buckle after having been counseled on 16  February about those specific items. 

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. There is no evidence that the commander harassed the applicant  and thereby caused or contributed to his misconduct.  Similarly, there is no evidence that the applicant sought or was denied psychological counseling.  It is clear, however,  that the applicant's misconduct did not start with the incident for which he was tried and acquitted.  He had demonstrated an unwillingness to learn from either counseling or punishment long before that occurrence.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of mistreatment or procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  Since no relief appropriate on the issues of character, reason or authority for the discharge; there is reason to change the RE code. 

4.  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.

5.  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

__MDM__  __AAO__  __BJE___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC96-07551A
AR1998012291	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990526	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19951004	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, chapter 14	
DISCHARGE REASON	A64.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A93.23	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.