MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           2 March 2000 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999025941

	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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Edwin S. Castle		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		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 applications to correct his records by showing that he was reinstated to active duty, additionally he has requested that he be promoted and retired.

APPLICANT STATES: That he did nothing wrong, he was retaliated against because of his reporting of the wrongdoing of various senior authorities.  He should have been afforded whistleblower status and believes that he should be granted a waiver of the time limit on whistleblower complaints.  Because, he believes that the law was enacted specifically because of his reporting on the illegal activities at Armstrong Barracks in Germany.  He renews his contentions that he never requested discharge and that there are forgeries in his separation documents.  He contends that a careful examination of the timeline of the events, as he has described them, will demonstrate that he could not have requested discharge. The applicant contends, in effect, that the Board should interpret all the evidence and all his unsubstantiated assertions in the way he that interprets them.  

 COUNSEL CONTENDS: Counsel, in effect, concurs in the applicant's presentation and requests that all reasonable doubt be resolved in the applicant's favor.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in decisional documents prepared to reflect the Board's previous considerations of the case on 20 March 1991, 
26 August 1992, 19 January 1994, 20 March 1996, and 22 October 1998 (COPIES ATTACHED).

The applicant offers no new evidence.  However, his contention that the time limit on Whistleblower cases should be extended has not been previously considered by the Board.  This constitutes new evidence that requires Board consideration.
 
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 applicant’s contentions.  He was never afforded whistleblower status, nor has he provided any evidence that he reported misconduct on the part of his superiors or that such activity actually occurred. 

2.  The discrepancies that the applicant has previously described in the handling of his bar to reenlistment and the underlying indebtedness problem were thoroughly considered and discussed in the 1992 proceedings.  That Board 
concluded that any possible impropriety was outweighed by the fact that there was no evidence that the applicant made any effort to overcome the bar or serve out his enlistment.  This Board notes that there is no such evidence. 

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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999025941	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000302	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.06	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.