MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:            6 February 2001   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000043564

	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	
	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		Member	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		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, that his resignation from Officer Candidate School (OCS) be corrected to reflect an “involuntary” vice “voluntary” resignation. In separate correspondence, dated 19 September 2000, he also requests “automatic promotion to Captain, front pay, back pay, allowances, reimbursement of lawyer’s fees and other relief the ABCMR deems proper.”

APPLICANT STATES:  The Board “did not consider [his] involuntary resignation in its prior reviews.”  He contends, in effect, that his resignation should be considered “involuntary” for “two reasons: (a) for what I was told by my commanders [that I had been recycled] (b) there was an error in procedures.”  In support of his request he submits a 10 page statement essentially rehashing information contained in previous correspondence to the Board.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in memorandums prepared to reflect the Board’s consideration of previous applications submitted by the applicant concerning his departure from OCS Class 4-95 (AR1998012079, AR1999029055).

The applicant was a member of OCS Class 4-95.  In September 1995 he was verbally informed, in effect, that he would not graduate with the class unless he recycled.  On 11 September 1995 he submitted a request for voluntary resignation from OCS checking the block “lack of commitment” as the basis for his resignation.

On 1 July 1999 (AR1998012079) the Board denied his petition to have his records corrected to reflect that he graduated from Officer Candidate School (OCS) and that he be commissioned as an officer in the U.S. Army.  The Board noted in that action that while there may have been procedural errors in the processing of the applicant’s recycling action at OCS the error in procedure did not result in an injustice to the applicant.  The Board also concluded that the applicant was not under duress when he checked the block “lack of commitment” as his reason for voluntarily resigning from OCS.

On 20 January 2000 (AR1999029055) the Board denied the applicant’s request for reconsideration, which also included new requests that his records be corrected to reflect positive findings on his OCS evaluations, promoting him to captain, and affording him an out of court settlement of five and a half million dollars.  The Board concluded in their deliberation that “whether he was notified in writing or verbally, he was made aware that he would have to recycle in order to be considered for graduation.  His contention that he had the right to rebut this action is correct, however, it is rendered moot by the fact that he submitted a voluntarily [sic] request to disenroll.”

On 5 June 2000 (AR2000040809) a member of the Board’s staff determined that his 10 April 2000 application to the Board was essentially a request for reconsideration of his previous applications “regarding [his] resignation from Officer Candidate School.”  That staff member, after carefully analyzing the applicant’s case determined that there was “no new evidence, information or argument which was not in the record at the time of the prior Board consideration” and closed the case administratively without referral to the Board.

As a result of the 5 June 2000 letter the applicant submitted correspondence, dated 23 June 2000, indicating that the Board had never considered a request from him that his resignation should be considered involuntary vice voluntary.  That 23 June 2000 letter is the basis for this memorandum of consideration.

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 contends that the Board has never addressed his contention that his resignation from OCS was involuntary, because he was told by his commanders that he had been recycled and because there was an error in procedures, the Board notes that both of those issues have been effectively addressed by the previous Boards.  The evidence confirms that the applicant submitted a voluntary resignation from OCS on 11 September 1995.  His contention that the circumstances of that submission actually made it an “involuntary” resignation are without foundation.  

2.  The Board has already concluded that inspite of the applicant’s argument that proper procedures were not followed it did not result in any injustice to the applicant.  Additionally that Board noted that “whether he was being told he was being recycled or recommended for recycling, the Board concludes the Course Convening Authority had concurred, at least verbally, in the battalion commander’s recommendation for that action and so either term would have been correct and practically interchangeable.”  While the applicant continues to argue his point he has submitted no new evidence which convinces the Board that his 11 September 1995 resignation from OCS was anything but a voluntary action.  The Board denies the applicant’s petition to show that his resignation was involuntary.

3.  The Board also concludes that there is no basis to grant any of the applicant’s other requests outlined in his 19 September 2000 letter to the Board.  The Board notes that the issue of promotion to Captain was already sufficiently addressed in the Board’s 20 January 2000 deliberations.  Because there is no basis to grant his request for automatic promotion to Captain the remaining issues of “front” and “back” pay and allowance is moot.

4.  Additionally, the Board notes that the applicant’s incursions of legal fee was of his own choosing and sees no obligation on the Board’s part to reimburse him for those fees and deems no other relief by the Board is warranted in this case.

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

___rvo__  ___tl___  ___wtm__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000043564	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010206	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	Deny	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	128.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.