MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

IN THE CASE OF: 
	 
BOARD DATE: 	5 April 2001
DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000048429

	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. P. A. Castle		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajja		Chairperson	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		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 to correct his records by showing he received a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he is being punished because he could not psychologically adjust to military life.  

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case AC97-07699 on 28 January 1998.

The applicant’s submissions constitute new evidence that requires Board consideration.

The applicant submits in support of his contention that he could not adjust to military life a letter dated 27 September 2000 from a therapist at the veteran center in Ohio.  The therapist describes the applicant as being below average in most skill categories and encloses the results of the applicant’s evaluation of Employability Assessment Report to the Industrial Commission of Ohio as evidence.  In addition, the report reveals that the applicant does not have the ability to benefit from academic training, but would be able to learn from on-the-job training to perform entry level sedentary or light jobs.  

The therapist also states that as a child the applicant was absent from school frequently as evidenced by an attached second grade psychological report referring to irregular attendance and the inability to do school work.

The original consideration by the Board describes that at the time of discharge the applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) for 657 days and was credited with only      3 months and 9 days of total active service.

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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.

2.  The applicant’s contentions that he could not adjust to military life are outweighed by the fact that he was qualified for service by virtue of his age and education and does nothing to demonstrate an injustice in the discharge.

3.  The submission of evidence to describe the poor skill levels and early childhood absentee behavior do nothing to justify 657 days AWOL and do not demonstrate an injustice in the discharge.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

5.  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.

6.  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

__JH___  ___CLA__  ___HBO__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000048429	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	010405	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.