MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            9 November 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1998013649

	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. Robert J. McGowan		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi 		Member	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher 		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 request for award of a German Army badge and a “buyout” of his voided enlistment contract.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was told lies by his recruiter when he enlisted and an investigation was conducted which concluded that he was induced to enlist through misrepresentations; that he was given the opportunity to void his enlistment contract and did so; that he had contributed $1,200 into the Montgomery GI Bill educational benefits fund, but could not use it because he had not completed his enlistment; that he “won a German Armed Efficiency Badge,” but never received it; and that he has been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder.

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 9 September 1998 (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant provides a letter to his Representative in Congress, the Honorable Zack Wamp, Tennessee.

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.  The applicant’s letter is little more than a restating of his case and a complaint over his treatment by the Army and this Board’s granting of only that portion of his application related to the refunding of his Montgomery GI Bill educational benefits payments.  While the applicant has detailed his contentions once again, these do not amount to new evidence.  Furthermore, expressions of dissatisfaction with previous decisions, contentions, unsubstantiated assertions, interpretations and argument (except those that set forth a new factual basis for the requested relief) do not warrant a reversal by the Board.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Army.  He questioned his enlistment and the Army, finding it to be based on recruiter misrepresentations, offered him the only remedy it could, the opportunity to request separation.  The Army is not a sports franchise and soldiers who are released from their enlistments are not entitled to have their “contracts bought out.”

3.  There is no evidence in the applicant’s record that he earned any German Army badge.  In any case, as stated in his original Board Proceedings, the awarding of any foreign military badge is not within the purview of the US Government or the Department of the Army.

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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC1998013649	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED		
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	107.0000	
2.	112.0000	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.