MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           21 September 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000043125

	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. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Eric N. Andersen		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 upgrading his dishonorable discharge to honorable. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his post-service behavior and conduct warrant the requested relief.  He offers several more affidavits concerning this assertion.  He repeats his earlier statements about being hospitalized and about the date of his discharge.  He offers affidavits from his family about the date.

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 March 2000 (COPY ATTACHED).

The additional affidavits supporting his post-service contention are new evidence that requires Board consideration.

The applicant’s daughter swears he is a kind, giving person, who is supportive of her and her husband’s extended family.  He always worked hard to provide for his family.

His daughter-in-law writes that the applicant travels 2½ hours at least twice a month to visit his grandchildren.  He is an honest man and would not misstate the dates of his military service.

A neighbor of 12 years swears he is a good neighbor and is of good character.

Another individual swears the applicant is a respectable and generous person.

A former co-worker and acquaintance of 26 years swears the applicant is dependable, honest, helpful and would do anything to be helpful.

Another former co-worker swears the applicant is honest, trustworthy, and loyal. 

A former co-worker, who has known the applicant since 1976 swears the applicant is honest, trustworthy and a good friend.

A former co-worker (for a period of 8 to 10 years) swears the applicant was courteous, got along with everyone and treated everyone with respect.

An individual who has known the applicant for 22 years and once worked with him reports the applicant is hard working, dependable and helpful to others.

Another neighbor reports that the applicant is helpful and friendly.

Another co-worker with the applicant swears he is honest and trustworthy.
Army Regulation 635-200, at chapter 3 outlines the criteria for characterization of service.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization of service is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty.

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 concludes that the exact dates of the applicant’s enlistment and separation are not germane to the question of the character of the discharge.

2.  The evidence concerning the applicant’s post-service accomplishments and conduct is noted.  However, these matters are not so exceptionally meritorious as to outweigh the fact that he was appropriately convicted and sentenced by a general court-martial for being AWOL during wartime.  Furthermore, there is no indication that he ever rendered any significant service.  He did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty. 

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

___jhl___  __clg____  ___ena__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR200003125	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000921	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	106.01	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.