MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           25 July 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000038120

	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:

	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. John H. Kern		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 appeal to correct his records by showing that he satisfactorily completed the physician’s assistant (PA) program and by commissioning him as a PA.  He also requests a personal appearance hearing and authorization for the senior PA who supports his appeal to accompany him.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect,  that the Army Review Boards Agency’s legal advisor and the previous Board misinterpreted the evidence and the regulations.  He also contends, in effect, that, since he was granted a degree by the University of Oklahoma, and since his college transcript shows no failing grades, he was fraudulently dropped from the PA program because the PA Program Phase II Director alleged he had failing grades.  He submits copies of his diploma, his transcript, a memorandum from the Phase II Director, and a memorandum of support from the senior PA who has previously supported the applicant’s case.  

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 on 15 December 1999 (COPY ATTACHED).

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

The memorandum from the PA Program Phase II Director at Fort Bragg, North Carolina states, that the applicant’s  “repeated numerical grades in elements of his rotation are not passing.”

The senior PA (a major) repeats the already documented review of the case by a board of inquiry.  He contends that the Phase II director manipulated the truth, that the applicant should have been considered innocent until proven guilty, and that the present situation “violates all of our oaths to uphold the Constitution.”  He asks that he be granted a personal appearance to argue the applicant’s case.

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.  Expressions of dissatisfaction and disagreement with previous decisions do not warrant consideration by the Board.  

2.  The memorandum from the PA Program Phase II Director relates to the applicant’s performance at Phase II training at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  His grades while an academic student in the University of Oklahoma phase of the PA program are irrelevant to the content, purpose and intent of that memorandum and to this case.

3.  The senior PA’s opinion is noted but it is insufficient to demonstrate an error or an injustice in this case.

4.  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.

5.  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

__TSK___  __SK___  __JHK__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000038120	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000725	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.03	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.