MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           7 September 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20000038726

	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. Celia L. Adolphi 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		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 appeals to correct his records by expunging various officer efficiency reports, promoting him to major and restoring him to active duty with back pay.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, he was unfairly assigned and rated because of racism on the part of the battalion commander.  Therefore, he was non-selected for promotion and separated from the service because of racial prejudice.  He contends that the statistical analysis previously available should have demonstrated to the Board’s satisfaction that there was institutional racism in the Army promotion system. He should have not been barred from having the courts hear his case because he filed a motion in court as soon as he was informed by the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army that he could do so.  He furnishes his previous submissions to the court.  He points to recent public pronouncements to demonstrate that there is still not equal opportunity in the military.  He submits a letter from a retired first sergeant to substantiate his case.
 
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in memoranda prepared to reflect the Board's previous considerations of the case on 28 June 1989, 21 February 1990 and 20 July 1994 (COPIES ATTACHED).

The retired first sergeant’s case is new evidence that requires Board consideration.  

The first sergeant supports the applicant’s appeal and writes that the battalion commander, lieutenant colonel (LTC) P_____ , continually demonstrated racial bias against minority officers and noncommissioned officers especially those married to white spouses.  LTC P____ denied the applicant the same professional development opportunities he provided white officers.  A white officer who was not physically fit and who almost never participated in physical training was selected for company command although the applicant was not.  Although the applicant always performed his duties in an exemplary manner, three of his white contemporaries were selected for company command while the applicant was not.  The first sergeant opines that the allegations made by the applicant were factual and recommended favorable action on his request. 

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 Board takes careful note of the retired first sergeant’s statement and concludes that this is evidence that the applicant experienced discrimination because of his race.  The members of the Board believe that no person should have to feel discriminated against, let alone endure such treatment.

2.  However, in light of the fact that the applicant’s case has been previously considered by this Board on three separate occasions without any such evidence being presented, it does not constitute clear and convincing evidence of an injustice.  

3.  In well over a decade the applicant produced only one supporting statement. The supporting evidence, while significant in its own right is insignificant in comparison to the injustice alleged and the relief sought.
 
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

__CLA__  ___WTM_  __TBR __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR20000038726	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000907	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	111.01	
2.	131.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.