MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:                              
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1998013711

	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. Walter Avery		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Member	
	Ms. Karen 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 to be retired at the pay grade E5.  He further request all back pay from August 1990, some type of settlement or severance pay, advancement to SSG and related back pay and an amended DD Form 214 reflecting the advancement to SSG and or retirement.

APPLICANT STATES:  He only accepted the contested Article 15 because he did not believe he could receive a fair court-martial.  He states he only accepted a Chapter 6, Separation because of Dependency or Hardship discharge to avoid a Chapter 14, Separation for Misconduct, discharge. That while on the SSG promotion list he exceeded the necessary points required for promotion.  He reasserts that it is his ex-wife who is at fault for the false assault charges, a prejudiced, bigoted battalion commander who is at fault for the Article 15, the chain of command is at fault for his indebtedness and another angry battalion commander for his Chapter 6 discharge.

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 26 November 1997 (COPY ATTACHED)

The applicant sent the following documents:  a Certificate of Training which addresses him as a SGT(P) as evidence he was about to make SSG; a NGB Form 22, DD Form 214, a newspaper article and pay manual extract as information that he can be retired early, and an indorsement recommending the applicant for a Chapter 6 rather than a Chapter 14 discharge. 

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 states he made E6 in 6 years and took issue with the previous Board’s finding that “No available evidence that the applicant would have been promoted to E6 Sep 87”.  The applicant submitted the certificate listed under new evidence to support his claim.  The certificate is not proof that the applicant was ever promoted to SSG or would have been promoted to SSG, if he had not been reduced to SP4.  

2.  The applicant alleges that for the second time a battalion commander treated him unfairly.  This time by unfairly attempting to discharge him for indebtedness.  He feels this commander was further agitated by a phone call he made to a general officer who then called the battalion commander.  The indorsement provided by the applicant indicates the Chapter 6 was for his inability to perform his duties adequately and care for his child.  The applicant himself describes a situation whereby his military duties were having a adverse impact on his financial and parenting duties.  The applicant was a seasoned soldier, fully aware of the assistance available to him such as Chaplain, JAG or, IG.  He should not have agreed with (for the second time) an administrative action that he did not believe was true.  The Chapter 6 packet, which would contain the required counseling packet, is unavailable.  The applicant has not proven that the Chapter 6 discharge was not properly administered.

3. The applicant’s technical competence is not in question.  The case record shows the applicant did not know his ex-wife had been divorced twice before, he believes her to be a liar and adulterer, the applicant was charged with leaving the scene of an accident, involved in domestic disturbances, counseled for indebtedness and the inability to provide for a dependent.  All of these are personal problems that eventually led to the Chapter 6 discharge.  There is no evidence presented or information provided that the Chapter 6, which the applicant requested, was not properly administered, therefore there is no basis to retire him retroactively.

4.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submission and argument 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

_rvo____  _cla _____  _kyf ____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR 1998013711	
SUFFIX		
RECON	19971126	
DATE BOARDED	19991109	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.35	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.