MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:          10 November 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999014840

	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:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway 		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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:  Under the provisions of the Board's reconsideration Project that his earlier appeal to change the narrative reason for his discharge under the Trainee Discharge program (TDP) and to expunge any derogatory material be reconsidered.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was never given any explanation for his discharge.  He was forced to sign discharge processing papers that he was not allowed to read.  He was, in effect, the perfect soldier who always followed orders, helped others and was the first to volunteer for guard duty and KP.  He was ridiculed by the other recruits because he did not smoke marijuana.  The only thing he ever failed to do was to qualify on the rifle range and that was because the sergeant refused to let him "zero" his rifle after he had been hospitalized.   He learned years later that it was the practice at the time  to discharge any recruit with any college education.  He was cheated out of his pay and had to turn in uniforms and equipment that he had purchased with his own money or brought wit him from ROTC.  He was beaten up by people in the holding company because he was falsely accused of being a homosexual.  He contracted pneumonia in the service and had to pay for his own medical care after he was discharged.  He was later denied a commission by the Air Force and the Navy and has been denied Federal employment and a security clearance because of the discharge.  He includes six notarized, personal letters of support or reference.

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 3 October 1990 (COPY ATTACHED).  The intervening request was properly close administratively.  

The six notarized letters are new evidence.  The appear to be an implied argument that the discharge was unjust or unfounded at the time.  As such they constitute new evidence that requires Board consideration.

The letters include the following:

A sergeant in the county sheriff's office has known the applicant since 1974.  He reports that the applicant has continued to  improve his education throughout his lifetime, is very honest, responsible and active in anti-drug campaigns.  He is a fine individual, an exceptionally hard worker and always goes out or his was to help others.

A retired reference librarian states that she has known the applicant since 1973 when he took one of her classes.  He stood out as the hardest worker in a class of 200.  They have enjoyed a long friendship.  She considers him to have a likable personality.  He can make friends with people of all ages.

The mother of high school classmates considers him special friend.  She finds him friendly, amusing, and kind.  She knows his morals to be above reproach.  She reports that he is, without a doubt, the most highly motivated man she has ever known.  She write that "He has an enormous circle of friends and enjoys all kinds of entertainments; but never loses sight of his goals  There was never a moment that he did not have a plan."

Another research librarian has also known him since the 1973 class.  She also considers him "a most conscientious" student and one of the most motivated and enthusiastic students I have ever seen."

A work supervisor from the 1970 to 1974 time frame reports that the applicant worked for him during summers and school vacations.  He relates that, if he left the crew for any reason the applicant would keep on working while all the other workers would stop work until they saw the boss coming.

A retired National Guard sergeant first class has known the applicant since 1973 when they were fellow employees.  He knew the applicant had completed some college ROTC and encouraged him to look into joining the National Guard.  He was dismayed when the applicant returned without completing basic training.  He thought the applicant would be and asset to the Army and if he were still a National Guard recruiter he would gladly enlist the applicant today, if that were possible.  

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 substantiating evidence to support the applicant's claim that he was mistreated and that the discharge was unwarranted.  The record shows that the discharge process was in accordance with applicable law and regulations and that the applicant's service was appropriately characterized.  There is no indication of procedural error which would tend to have substantially jeopardized the applicant's rights.  

2.  The statement in support of the applicant are noted but they do not demonstrate that the discharge was in error or unjust.  On the contrary, some of  them definitely tend to support the conclusion that the applicant probably was unable or unwilling to adjust his own desires and ambitions to the Army's need for all individuals to fit in as a member of a team.  

3.  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.

4.  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

___inw__  ___clg___  __mvt___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

	AR1999014840	
		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991110	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19750331	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 5	
DISCHARGE REASON	TDP	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A25.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.