MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            27 September 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001057979

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Eric N. Andersen		Member	
	Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy, Jr.		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 he be reinstated to active duty with restoration of his pay grade, credit for all service lost, compensation for his financial losses and all back pay and allowances due him from the date of his discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was unjustly denied reenlistment by his commander after numerous incidents, conflicts of interests and questionable acts committed against him and other soldiers.  He goes on to state that due to the questionable circumstances surrounding his honorable discharge and the initiation of a Congressional investigation, he believes that his discharge was racially, socially and improperly motivated.  He also states that due to the improper distribution of punishment against him, the improper application and misuse of reenlistment opportunities, his financial losses before, during, and after his separation, he deserves the right to have a proper judgment and to have his former unit investigated.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He enlisted on 29 July 1982 for a period of 3 years, training as a military policeman, and assignment to a Forces Command (FORSCOM) unit.  He successfully completed his training and was assigned to Fort McPherson, Georgia, where he remained until he was transferred to Germany in May 1984.

On 7 February 1985, he reenlisted for a period of 3 years and assignment to Fitzsimmons Army Medical Center (FAMC), Colorado.  He departed Germany in July 1985 and was transferred to FAMC where he was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 8 August 1986.  He remained at FAMC until he was transferred back to Germany on 25 November 1986.  He extended his enlistment for a period of 23 months in order to complete his overseas tour. 

Although the specific facts and circumstances are not present in the available records; his records show that he was reduced from the pay grade of E-5 to the pay grade of E-4 on 8 August 1989.

On 24 October 1989, the applicant extended his enlistment for a period of 7 months to meet the reenlistment ineligibility point for his pay grade.

On 9 January 1990, nonjudicial punishment was again imposed against him for violating a lawful regulation and a lawful order not to drive his privately owned vehicle after having his license suspended.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3 and a forfeiture of pay (both suspended until 9 April 1990), restriction and extra duty.  He elected not to appeal the punishment.

On 31 July 1990, the applicant was honorably discharged in the pay grade of    E-4, due to the expiration of his term of service (ETS).  He had served 8 years and 2 days of total active service and was issued a Reentry Code of 1A. 

A review of the applicant’s official records fails to indicate any action by his commander to initiate any formal bar to reenlistment against the applicant.  

Army Regulation 601-280, in effect at the time, provides the criteria for reenlistment eligibility and establishes the maximum number of years persons may serve on active duty in a particular grade.  The Retention Control Point (RCP) established for the pay grade of E-4 was 8 years of maximum service.  Personnel who were unable to reenlist for a minimum reenlistment period of 2 years in order to reach the maximum RCP for their grade were, in effect, barred from reenlistment.  Action by commanders to initiate any paperwork to effect such a bar is not required. 

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.  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.

2.  The applicant was barred from reenlistment at the time of his separation and was not fully qualified for reenlistment at the time of separation due to his having reached his maximum RCP for his grade; accordingly, he was properly discharged in accordance with the applicable regulations.  The Board also notes that he extended his enlistment to reach his maximum RCP which would indicate that he was aware that he was barred from reenlistment for maximum service in his grade.

3.  The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions that his commander unjustly barred him from reenlistment and that his discharge was racially motivated.  However, the evidence of record as well as the evidence submitted by the applicant, fail to support his contentions.  

4.  The Board has also noted the applicant’s contention that an investigation of his former unit should be conducted.  Although this Board is not an investigative Board and normally requires applicant’s to provide the burden of proof, the Board believes that an investigation conducted 10 years after-the-fact would prove futile or at best, very difficult to conduct, given the length of time that has elapsed.  Accordingly, the Board finds no merit to his contention. 
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 ___  __teo ___  __ena___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001057979	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/09/27	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  192	110.0300/REINSTATEMENT	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.