MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:           29 March 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000048439

	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:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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 military records by changing his June 1992 re-entry eligibility (RE) code.

APPLICANT STATES:  In a letter to the president, the applicant contends, in effect, that various supporting documents that show that his separation was unjust were not considered by the Board in the original case.  He provides a lengthy description of the events that led to his separation.  He submits numerous documents to substantiate his case.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum of consideration (MOC) prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AR2000040689) on 19 September 2000.

The applicant’s contentions are new argument that requires Board consideration.

The applicant’s submission includes:

	  His handwritten notes on the MOC of the previous case.

	  A 16 July 2000 memorandum from the Reserve unit commander, a Chemical Corps captain, to the effect that he had known and worked with the applicant since November 1998 and knew him to be a loyal and dedicated soldier who had demonstrated a high degree of professionalism and industry.  He recommended the applicant for the Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) Program even though his transfer would be a “significant loss” to the unit.

	  The unit executive officer, in a 24 July 2000 memorandum, stated that the applicant was dedicated and a hard worker with an excellent attitude.  He recommended the applicant for full time service in the Regular Army or the AGR Program even though he would be “greatly missed.”

	  In a 24 July 2000 memorandum the Reserve battalion operations officer wrote that the applicant was a dedicated, dependable, professional soldier whose “initiative and drive have been a tremendous benefit to the unit”.  He “strongly recommended” the applicant for active duty.

	  The Reserve battalion supply officer wrote, in an 8 July 2000 memorandum, that the applicant performed his supply sergeant duties in an exemplary manner, that he always met or exceeded standards, demonstrated high levels of technical and tactical proficiency, displayed extraordinary attention to detail, was physically fit, displayed strong military bearing and was committed to Army ideals.  He “strongly recommended” the applicant for active duty.

	  The Reserve battalion signal officer wrote that the applicant was of high character, had demonstrated the highest levels of service and performance and had gained the respect and trust of the entire unit.  He wrote “based on my personal observation and experience in working directly  I feel confident that [the applicant] will prove to be an effective leader within the active component.”

	  A sergeant first class wrote that he recommended the applicant be allowed to return to active duty.  He had demonstrated “the ability to work with a wide variety of people,” and “the willingness to complete any given task”.

	  Handwritten recommendations from two school officials and an employer stated that they had known the applicant for 5 and 6 years and that he was rated outstanding in most areas and at least average in all others.  He was highly recommended for any position.

	  A food service supervisor wrote in a 29 June 2000 memorandum that the applicant was courteous, willing and dependable.  

	  A personal action dated 28 August 1991 shows that the applicant was retested and improved his 1983 GT score from 92 to 113.

	  A record of counseling shows that the applicant was counseled on 
31 October 1989 for doing a good job and 31 August 1990 for performing well although he “failed PLDC [Primary Leadership Development Course]”.  He was to “continue preparing for PLDC”

	  A June 1992 noncommissioned officer evaluation report indicated the applicant supported all Army values, was well motivated and willing to give 
100 percent.  His rater indicated that the applicant was successful or met all standards and was fully capable, and the senior rater ranked him in the second block in both performance and potential.

	  An October 1991 message, from the commander Training Center, Fort Eustis, Virginia stated that there were errors in the skills qualifications tests for military occupational specialty (MOS) 76Y (the applicant’s primary MOS) and that all commands should reconsider adverse personnel actions based on the tests. 

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 has 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 with 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 favorable information is noted but this fails to outweigh the fact that the applicant was repeatedly counseled for behavior that can best be described as misconduct after he had already been recommended for a bar to reenlistment.  This includes repeatedly being late for duty, leaving the supply room keys unsecured and failure to follow instructions.  Furthermore, he voluntarily requested separation rather than trying to overcome the bar.
 
2.  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.

3.  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

__JNS __  ___CJP__  __LE____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000048439	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010329	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.03	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.