MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:	

	BOARD DATE:             24 November 1999                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:	AR1999021912

	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, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Robert G. Hinkle		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 previous application to correct his records by upgrading his discharge .

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he is requesting clemency based upon post service factors.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  Counsel contends that the Bad Conduct Discharge was too harsh under the circumstances and that the trial was unfair because it was conducted with an interpreter.  The applicant had medical problems.  The ringing in his ears mitigated his AWOL. 

They submit a copy of the record of trial and copies of 1958, 1980 and 1991 medical records to show that the applicant had ear problems, required surgery and needed a hearing aid in 1980.  

They refer to the applicant’s 1987 statement in which he recounts that he was immature, uneducated and dependent upon his mother.  His ear was injured at the rifle range while in basic training but the sergeants would not let him seek medical help.  He went AWOL so that his mother could treat his ear. 

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 13 May 1981 (COPY ATTACHED). 

The applicant submits several letters to substantiate his contention.  They include:

A letter from the assistant director of s senior center states that the applicant has been a member for 5 years and is a responsible well liked individual.  

A caseworker at another senior center states that the applicant is upstanding patient and grateful.  He is warm to the staff.

His physician of several years states that he is trustworthy, responsible and pleasant.

An acquaintance states that they have lived in the same building for 23 years.  He finds the applicant friendly, considerate, and respectful of his neighbors.  He is a decent and honorable person.

Another acquaintance (for over 20 years) writes that the applicant is an honest, law-abiding citizen and family man.  He tries to do his best for his family and is always willing to help those less fortunate than himself.

His pastor states the applicant responsible and recommends him highly.

Another physician finds the applicant  pleasant, honest and trustworthy.

Neither the record of trial nor the staff judge advocate, who conducted a personal interview with the applicant after the trial make any mention of the applicant’s ear problem.

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 discharged was not too harsh especially in light of the fact that the applicant’s military record is devoid of any significant service. 

2.  The applicant’s ear problem does not mitigate his behavior.  It was not even mentioned at the trial or in his personal interview with the SJA.  The earliest medical evidence of such a problem is from several years after the discharge.

3.  The letters of support are noted but the applicant’s post service conduct and accomplishments are not, in and of themselves, so exceptionally meritorious as to warrant the requested relief.

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

___RVO_  __RGH__  __LE____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999021912	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991124	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	BD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19520527	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	  	
DISCHARGE REASON	SPCM	
BOARD DECISION		
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES        1.	A92.21	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.