MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           23 March 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000038111

	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.
			Director	
	Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger Able		Member	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		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 application to correct his records by showing that he was retained on active duty and ultimately retired in the rank of colonel.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was deprived of due process because the Active Duty Board (ADB) utilized the Inspector General’s (IG) report in considering his case.  He contends that law and regulations were violated in his case.  He further contends that both this Board and the courts were unfair in rejecting his appeals based upon the statutes of limitations because he was deprived of significant documentation to substantiate his case until 1997.  He had tried for years to obtain the pertinent documents under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act but was unsuccessful until recently.  He submits copies of voluminous official records including those that were only recently been made available.  

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum of consideration (MOC) prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case on 
27 February 1985 (COPY ATTACHED).

The documents recently made available constitute new evidence that requires Board consideration.

The recently released documents had heretofore been denied him because of the personal nature of information about other individuals involved.  They include hundreds of pages that essentially duplicate the information already considered by the Board, except to suggest that LTC C_____ had introduced a “red herring” into his own case by suggesting that the applicant was being persecuted due to his relatively insignificant relationship with the LTC.      

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.   While the applicant only recently received documents that had previously been denied him those documents do not demonstrate an error or an injustice in his case.  In fact, those documents do almost nothing to illuminate the case, other than to show the meaning of the “red herring” that the applicant has referred to so frequently.  However, the relationship with LTC C_____ had nothing to do with the applicant’s release from active duty.  Furthermore, the 1985 Board had examined those same documents and reached the same conclusion.

2.  As mentioned in the earlier MOC the applicant’s case was twice considered by the Army Active Duty Board.  He well knew what the evidence was against him and had adequate opportunity to rebut it.  Additionally, authorization to use the IG report had been granted.  He was not deprived of due process.

 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

__SLP__  __RA____  __JEA___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

						

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000038111	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000323	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.