MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            23 February 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026456

	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. Walter Avery, Jr.		                        Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchannon		Member	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		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 
	            )     

APPLICANT REQUESTS: The he be reinstated into the National Guard of a state other than California and awarded back pay.

APPLICANT STATES: That false allegations led to a loss of job and expenses.

In support of his request the applicant submitted State of California Orders 56-48, dated 1 April 1997, assigning him to Temporary State Active Duty; Report of Duty–State Duty Personnel form, which shows the applicant worked under the Temporary State Active Duty program from 12–23 April 1997; State of California Orders 94-14, dated 5 June 1997, relieving him from the Temporary State Active Duty program; and a copy of a court action of the State of California vs. the applicant, dismissing the case against him based on insufficient evidence and in the interest of justice.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He entered the Regular Army 23 June 1977, was trained as a cook and after several violations of the UCMJ, he was separated under the provisions of the Expeditious Discharge Program, Under Honorable Conditions, on 22 November 1978, with a Re-enlistment (RE) Code of 3.

The applicant appealed his Under Honorable Conditions discharge from the Regular Army to the Army Discharge Review Board.  He was notified on           29 January 1981 that his appeal was denied.

The applicant enlisted in the California Army National Guard (CAARNG) on         9 October 1981, served as a cook and separated honorably on 8 October 1988, for expiration term of service, with a RE Code of 1.  While in the CAARNG the applicant participated in the Temporary State Active Duty program.  This program allowed the applicant to work full time as a cook.  When relieved from the program by State of California Orders 94-14, he was removed from this program only.  He continued to serve in the CAARNG until his separation for expiration of service obligation.

His awards include the Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal, California State Service Ribbon, and the California Good Conduct Ribbon.

The applicant’s application did not expound on what the false allegations were who made the false allegations and how the false allegations led to his loss of pay.  The court document only indicates some unnamed charge against the applicant was dismissed.  It contains no identifying information as to the truthfulness of the allegations and how the dismissed charge led to a loss of pay.

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 evidence submitted does not explain what the allegations against the applicant were, who made the allegations and how these allegations led to a court action and discharge from the Temporary State Active Duty program.  The orders submitted indicate the applicant was removed from the Temporary State Active Duty program only.  The orders removing the applicant from the program cite no allegation or charges, therefore the applicant’s contention that his removal was based on false allegations is not supported by the available evidence.

2.  The applicant requested reinstatement back into the Army National Guard with the condition he be reassigned to another state.  The applicant’s NGB   Form 22 reflects an honorable discharge and RE Code of 1, therefore this document does not prevent him from re-enlisting if otherwise eligible.  The Board has no authority to place him in the National Guard of another state.

3.  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_____  _eb_____  _rjw_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
				       Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999026456	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000223	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.03	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.