MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           16 December 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999022578

	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. Fred K. McCoy		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		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 earlier application to correct his records by allowing him to retire in the rank of major.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  In effect, that the applicant would not have accepted voluntary recall to active duty if he had not been led to believe that this would entitle him to retire as a major.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case on  4 May 1994. (COPY ATTACHED).

Counsel’s contention constitutes new argument that requires Board consideration.

The applicant’s original application to this Board states “I always thought there was no difference between active duty served before or subsequent to retirement.” 

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 to substantiate the contention that the applicant was led to believe that, if he were recalled to active duty as a major that he would be permanently retired in that grade.  His original application to this Board indicates that he “thought” this would be the case.

2.   A procedural error was made in recalling the applicant to active duty in the rank or major, but there is no error in his record. No injustice has occurred.

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

__FKM__  __RVC__  ___SK___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999022578	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991216	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.