MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           5 May 1999                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1998014052

	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.  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr.	James M. Alward		Chairperson	
	Mr.	John Saputo		Member	
	Mr.	Roger W. Able		Member	

	Also present, without vote, were:

	Mr.	Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. 	Lee Cates		Analyst	

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	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 upgrading his discharge to general under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES: That the Board is not respecting his achievements since being discharged.  The Board kept dwelling on a 30-year-old civilian offense that was a misdemeanor in Virginia, at that time.  The Board has no regard that he is now 53 years old, married, and will retire in 2001.  He contends he was dealt with unjustly during his Advanced Individual Training.  He provides copies of documentation previously in his Official Military Personnel File or provided in his initial application.  He also provides 3 packets, which he labels as “new evidence”, identified as (1) Conclusion to Deposition; (2) Testimony of Borden Joseph Jr.; and, (3) Veterans Medical Center, Camp Hill Pennsylvania.  All resubmitted documentation and “new evidence” are attached.

COUNSEL CONTENDS: The American legion counsel contends that the applicant’s post service conduct has been sufficiently creditable to warrant the Board’s clemency relief.  Additionally, they opine that it is inequitable for the applicant to continue to suffer the stigma of an under other than honorable conditions discharge more than 30 years after separation.  Counsel contends the injustice of the Board dwelling on a 30-year-old civilian offense reflects the probative facts needed for equitable review.  

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 8 February 1995 and 9 May 1996 (COPIES ATTACHED).

In the applicant’s Conclusion to Deposition, he basically describes his attendance at the Army Transportation School and the racial discrimination he encountered (COPY ATTACHED).

In his Testimony of Borden Joseph Jr, he describes his incarceration in the hand of civil authorities, argues that his punishment was too severe under Army regulations that did not apply to his discharge and provides a copy of a statement purportedly from his high school friend attesting that while in the Hampton City Jail, Hampton, Virginia, in November 1967, a cell mate told him he was responsible for the offense for which the applicant was charged and convicted (COPY ATTACHED).

The final new evidence is an undated, unsigned document alleged to be from a physician at the Veterans Medical Center, Camp Hill, PA.  This document provides much commentary of how the applicant was ill treated by his superior noncommissioned officer (by name), details of the applicant’s training, and, that the sergeant used his rank to cause the applicant to fail his examinations and thus not become military occupational specialty qualified (COPY ATTACHED).
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 of racial discrimination or prejudice either before, or incident to, the applicant’s induction or discharge.

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

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

JMA_____  JS _____  RWA____ DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1998014052	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	1999 May 5	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19680930	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	Civil offenses	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.110	Discharge upgrade – Recon	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.