MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

IN THE CASE OF:      

BOARD DATE:           23 June 1999
DOCKET NUMBER:   AC75-06198B
			   AR1998014227

	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	
	Ms. P. A. Castle		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Gary F. Geraets		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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 application to correct his records by upgrading his discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, he grew up poor, black, depressed, schizophrenic, homeless, had a learning disorder, and was verbally and physically abused.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are reconstructed military records which were summarized in a memorandum of consideration (MOC) prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 15 July 1998.  (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant submits in a written statement the following contentions as evidence which constitutes new argument:

a.	he was young and immature
b.	the first AWOL was because his mother had a nervous breakdown
c.	the second AWOL was because his mother had another breakdown
d.	the third AWOL was because he was having schizophrenic attacks
e.	consideration should be given to upgrade his discharge because of his age at enlistment, his educational level, his lack of judgement, his cultural background and because of the reasons stated for the AWOL

Army regulation 15-185, paragraph 10c provides, in pertinent part, that reconsideration of a Board decision will be made when additional evidence or other matter including, but not limited to factual allegations or arguments, that were not previously available to the Board has been submitted.

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 contentions that he was young and immature, lacked good judgement, lacked educational training, and he was from a different cultural race, are without evidence or merit in light of the fact that he demonstrated the capacity to complete basic and advanced training.

The applicant’s military record do not make any reference to the existence of schizophrenic episodes prior to his discharge.

2.  The applicant’s contentions that his AWOL actions were as a result of his mothers nervous breakdowns does not excuse that he went AWOL nor does it negate the disciplinary actions he received for his actions. 

3.  Failing evidence that, at the time of the military and civilian offenses that led to his discharge, the applicant was suffering from a mental or emotional defect so severe that he could not tell right from wrong and adhere to the right, there is nothing to demonstrate an injustice in the discharge

4.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.

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

________  ________  ___LE___  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__MKP______  ___GFG_____     DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC75-06198A
AR1998014227	
SUFFIX	 	
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	19990623	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720525	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .635-200 . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Chapter 10	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  	A70.00	
2.   	110.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.