MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           8 February 2001                            
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000036531

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H . Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		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:  In effect, reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by changing the narrative reason for his discharge or grant him a formal hearing.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, he defers to his counsel.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  Counsel contends, in effect, that a recent psychiatric evaluation contradicts the diagnosis of atypical psychosis that resulted in the applicant’s 1988 discharge.  Counsel offers the report of a recent psychiatric examination and requests that the Army have the applicant reevaluated.  Counsel also offers recent employment related documentation to show that the applicant does not have any current mental problems.  

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 (AR1999014590) on 
22 September 1999.

The applicant’s submissions are new evidence that requires Board consideration.

The 29 November 1999 report by a psychiatrist reports that the applicant denied hearing voices while in the service and indicated that he had no mental health problems after separation.  The doctor notes that the applicant apparently stabilized with a relatively low dose of medication and questions why the applicant was allowed to go on leave (as the applicant reported) if he was thought to be psychotic.  The applicant’s educational efforts and current employment were also noted.  The psychiatrist offered a tentative diagnosis of brief reactive psychosis.

A civilian performance evaluation for the period from 1 June 1999 through 
30 April 2000 shows that the applicant has been successfully employed as an airport safety officer with the county sheriff’s office.  His most recent evaluation credits him with “Very good efficiency” and assigned a grade of 4.0 (on a 5 point system).

An 8 September 1999 certificate indicates the applicant completed a 3-hour course in customer service skills.  On 16 June 2000 he was nominated for a life saving award for administering cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on an individual who collapsed in public. 

A 29 November 1999 memorandum from the applicant’s supervisor states that the applicant is a dependable and stable employee who occupies a position of trust and responsibility as a dispatcher. 

An 11 December 1999 operation report indicates that the applicant was assigned as the airport security department’s dispatcher during a Presidential visit.

The Board receives approximately 12,000 applications each year, but normally grants fewer than fifteen formal hearings a year.  Formal hearings are granted only when the Board determines that a case is so complex, or the records so incomplete that only sworn testimony can provide the necessary information.

Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth the policy and procedures for the ABCMR.  It provides that, if a request for a reconsideration is received within one year of the prior consideration and the case has not been previously reconsidered, it will be resubmitted to the Board if there is evidence (including but not limited to any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted) that was not in the record at the time of the Board’s prior consideration.  The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence had been submitted.

The regulation provides further guidance for reconsideration requests that are received more than 1 year after the Board’s original consideration or after the Board has already reconsidered the case.  In such cases, the staff of the Board will review the request to determine if substantial relevant evidence has been submitted that shows fraud, mistake in law, mathematical miscalculation, manifest error, or if there exists substantial relevant new evidence discovered contemporaneously or within a short time after the Board’s original decision.  If the staff finds such evidence, the case will be resubmitted to the Board.  If no such evidence is found, the application will be returned without action.

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.  Notwithstanding the civilian psychiatrist’s current opinion there is insufficient evidence upon which to conclude that the applicant’s separation was erroneous.  Additionally, that opinion is based, to some unknown extent, on the applicant’s unsubstantiated assertions that he was not hearing voices at that time and has not had auditory hallucinations since.  

2.  Nevertheless, at the time of his separation from the Army, the applicant was evaluated by competent medical authorities, and reported a medical history that supported the diagnosis.  He concurred with that diagnosis, waived consideration by a physical disability board and requested discharge.  There is no requirement for the Army to reevaluate the applicant.

3.  The applicant’s recent employment success is noted but it does not demonstrate an error or an injustice in the discharge.  

4.  A formal hearing is unnecessary because this case is not so complex nor the records so incomplete as to require a formal hearing and sworn testimony is not the only available means of obtaining the information necessary for the Board to make an informed decision. 

5.  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.

6.  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

__JHL___  __DPH  _  _GDP ___  DENY APPLICATION

	Carl W. S. Chun
    Director, Army Board for Correction 
	of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR20000036531	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010208	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.