MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            10 February 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999024681

	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. Robert J. McGowan		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		Chairperson	
	Mr. James P. Steuve		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		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 request to change his reentry eligibility (RE) code and the narrative reason for separation on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his RE code and narrative reason for separation go with his old DD Form 214, not his upgraded DD Form 214.  He adds that the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded his Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOHC) discharge to a General Discharge (GD).

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 23 April 1998 (COPY ATTACHED).

Additionally, the applicant provides:  a copy of Page 5 from OSA Form 172; a copy of a 9 August 1991 memorandum from his commander advocating a hardship discharge; a copy of a 4 August 1997 memorandum from The Presbyterian Hospital in the City of New York naming the applicant security person of the month for April 1997; a copy of a 21 July 1998 letter from the New York City Police Department, subject: Candidate [applicant] Exam# 7053 List # 691; a copy of a 7 January 1999 memorandum from The Presbyterian Hospital in the City of New York, re:  [applicant]; a copy of an undated letter from the New York City Police Department to the Army Correction of Records; a copy of the applicant’s DD Form 214.

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 RE Code and narrative reason for separation on the applicant’s DD Form 214 do not relate to the characterization of his discharge (e.g., GD vice UOHC), but rather to the circumstances behind the discharge.

2.  The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial for the offense of AWOL.  Based upon this separation authority, the narrative reason for separation and the accompanying RE Code are correct.

3.  The ADRB saw fit to change the applicant’s characterization of service from UOHC to GD based on equity after considering the overall character of the applicant’s military service.  The ADRB found the reason for separation to be correct and did not change it

4.  This Board, on 23 April 1998, concurred with the action of the ADRB, determining that the reason for discharge and the RE Code were correct.
5.  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.

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

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__VBC__  ___JPS_  __KLW___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
				     Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AC1999024681	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000210	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	100.0300	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.