MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           8 February 2001   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000048184

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman		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 request for recharacterization of his general discharge to honorable and that his reenlistment code be changed so he can reenlist.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that at the time he was discharged his grandmother, who raised him, was very sick with cancer and was on her death bed.  He contends that he was a very mixed up young man and acted “simple minded” by leaving without proper authorization.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty); a character reference letter, dated 23 June 2000, from the Mayor of Amory, Mississippi; a character reference letter, dated 24 June 2000, from the Chief of Police of Amory, Mississippi; and a letter of explanation dated 23 June 2000. 

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 (Docket Number AC97-10132) on 19 November 1998.

The applicant’s contentions are the same as stated in his previous application; however, he has presented new evidence that requires Board consideration.

The applicant’s new evidence consists of two character reference letters from the Mayor and Chief of Police of his hometown.  In summary, they attest to the applicant’s good post service conduct in the community since his discharge and support his request for an upgrade of his discharge.   

Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth the policy and procedures for the ABCMR.  It provides that, if a request for a reconsideration is received within one year of the prior consideration and the case has not been previously reconsidered, it will be resubmitted to the Board if there is evidence (including but not limited to any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted) that was not in the record at the time of the Board’s prior consideration.  The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence had been submitted.

The regulation provides further guidance for reconsideration requests that are received more than 1 year after the Board’s original consideration or after the Board has already reconsidered the case.  In such cases, the staff of the Board will review the request to determine if substantial relevant evidence has been submitted that shows fraud, mistake in law, mathematical miscalculation, manifest error, or if there exists substantial relevant new evidence discovered contemporaneously or within a short time after the Board’s original decision.  If the staff finds such evidence, the case will be resubmitted to the Board.  If no such evidence is found, the application will be returned without action.

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 considered the contentions regarding the applicant’s post service conduct.  However, good post service conduct alone is not a basis for upgrading a discharge.  While the applicant’s post service conduct has been positive, it is not sufficient to warrant upgrade of his discharge in view of the seriousness of his offenses.   

2.  The reenlistment code used in the applicant’s case is correct and was applied in accordance with the applicable regulations.

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_____  GDP____  DPH____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000048184	
SUFFIX		
RECON	19981119	
DATE BOARDED	20010208	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19820526	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 Chapter 13	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsuitability	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.	100.0300	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.