MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

IN THE CASE OF:       

BOARD DATE:           20 January 2000
DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999029055

	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. Gerald E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Robert G. Hinkle		Chairperson	
	Mr. Gary F. Geraets		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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 application to correct his records;

1.  by correcting of his OCS evaluations to reflect positive findings;

2.  by showing that he graduated from Officer Candidate School (OCS) Class of 4-95; 

3.  by commissioning him as an officer in the U.S. Army on 22 September 1995 with subsequent promotions to captain; and,

4.  by affording him an out of court settlement of five and a half million dollars ($5,500,000).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect that the Board not only erred in its prior decision but that it compounded the errors of the training command.  He contends that these errors have resulted in an injustice to him.  He avers that the Board failed to conduct a full, fair and impartial hearing and that it denied him due process by ”failing to file findings of fact and conclusions of law.”  He contends that the Board’s action can not be considered correctly closed as it did not address Army Regulation (AR) 140-50, Update 4-1 No. 23, dated 1 September 1994, in its decisional document.  He again avers that he was under duress to complete his request for disenrollment in the manner in which it was completed.

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 1 July 1999 (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant’s request is largely identical to his prior request; however, he does submit numerous comments and arguments that were not available to the Board previously.  These statements are accepted as new arguments, issues or evidence that requires Board review.

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 majority of the applicant’s submissions are repetitive in nature and are expressions of his interpretations of law or disagreement with the Board’s prior decision.  Expressions of dissatisfaction with previous decisions, contentions, 

unsubstantiated assertions, interpretations and argument, (except those that set forth a new factual basis for the requested relief) do not warrant reconsideration by the Board. 

2.  As noted in the prior review, the applicant did not meet the requirements for graduation with class 4-95.  Whether he was notified in writing or verbally, he was made aware that he would have to recycle in order to be considered for graduation.  His contention that he had the right to rebut this action is correct, however, it is rendered moot by the fact that he submitted a voluntarily request to disenroll.  

3.  The previous Board’s comment concerning the knowledge possessed by the school commander was a gratuitous comment that is also moot.  The crux of the matter is the applicant’s voluntarily action precluded the command’s processing his recycling.

4.  The applicant has submitted no proof that he was under duress or of any coercion in either the submission his request or in the manner he completed it.

5.  As the applicant did not meet the requirements for graduation, he did not meet the requirements for commissioning.  He was never commissioned and as he never served as an officer, his request to be promoted to captain is without merit. 

6.  The lack of the citation of AR 140-50 was not improper nor does it constitute an error on the part of the Board.

7.  The Board does not have the authority to make monetary settlements of the nature that the applicant requests.  Even if it could, the applicant’s request for a 5 and a half million-dollar settlement is not only without merit it is ridiculous to the point of being absurd.

8.  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.

9.  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

__RGH__  __GFG__  ___BJE__  DENY APPLICATION

	Karl F. Schneider
	Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999029055	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000120	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	102.00	
2.	102.07	
3.	111.01	
4.	111.02	
5.		
6.