MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:                              
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC87-05375
				   AR1998014039

	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. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson	
	Mr. Gary C. Miller		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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 from general to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:   In effect, that his misconduct was mitigated by the fact that he served in combat and was wounded.  He states that when he returned from Vietnam he could not adjust to stateside duty.  He also contends that his ability to serve was impaired by youth and immaturity, by low aptitude, limited education psychiatric problems and because he was assigned to work outside of his military occupational specialty.  He submits documentation to show that the VA has awarded him service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder.  He also submits numerous service record documents accompanied by his explanations.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memoranda prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case on 4 May 1988 (COPY ATTACHED).

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

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.  Any impairment arising from either youth and immaturity or limited ability and  education is outweighed by the fact that he demonstrated a capacity for honorable service by completion of training.

2.  The applicant claims difficulty in adjusting after he returned from Vietnam, but the Board notes his misconduct started prior to his tour in Vietnam.

3.  In the absence of evidence that the applicant was so impaired by psychiatric , mental or emotional problems that he could not both tell right from wrong and adhere to the right, this issue does nothing to demonstrate an inequity in the discharge.  Furthermore, the record clearly shows that the applicant was subject to psychiatric examination prior to discharge. 

4.  The Board considers that any and all mitigation arising from the applicant’s service in Vietnam and any other sources has been appropriately applied by the issuance of a general discharge when he could have been held fully accountable for his blatant misconduct. 

5.   Prior to reaching the determination that it was not in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file, the Board looked at the entire file.  It was only after all other aspects had been considered and it had been concluded that there was no basis to recommend a correction of the records that the Board considered the statute of limitations.  Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it undoubtedly would have recommended relief in spite of the failure to submit the application within the 3 year time limit.  The Board has never denied an application simply because it was not submitted within the required time.

6.  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.

7.  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 _ __GCM__  __CLG__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC97-05375A
AR1998014039	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990624	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	General	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19681009	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	A42.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A93.02	
2.	A93.03	
3.	A92.07	
4.		
5.		
6.