MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

IN THE CASE OF:       

BOARD DATE:           8 January 2002                  
DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001059459

	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. Gerald E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Mr. Terry L. Placek		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 application to correct his records by removing the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 1 September 1998, and all related documents from his records.  He also requests that all documents concerning his removal from the 1998 Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Army Promotion List be removed, that he be reinstated on the promotion list and promoted to LTC with a date of rank of 1 March 1999.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that Brigadier General (BG) C_____ failed to give him a fair opportunity to defend himself, issued the GOMOR based on false or incomplete information, and imposed excessive punishment for an offense he did not commit.  He avers that the BG prejudged him and showed that he had already made his decision when he did not consider Colonel (COL) F_____’s comments.  He contends that the additional statement from COL F_____ supports this contention. 

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 (AR2000048254) on 6 February 2001.

The applicant submits an additional statement from COL F_______ that states, “While I was serving as the Chief of Staff at 7th Army Training Command, Grafenwoehr, I was contacted by several fellow officers in regards to Maj. M_____’s integrity, including an officer I had served with in a previous assignment.  All had said that his integrity was unquestionable.”  He states that, in his opinion, the BG’s punishment was too severe and that he believes that the applicant should be retained, restored to the lieutenant colonel promotion list and promoted.

The applicant’s submission is new evidence that requires Board review. 

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.  COL F_____’s opinion, that the results of the incident constitute unduly harsh punishment, does not show an error or injustice in this case.

2.  There is no evidence that BG C____ failed to follow proper procedures or prejudged the applicant prior to issuing a GOMOR and having it placed in the applicant’s official record. 

3.  The Board concludes that the GOMOR was appropriate and fully justified.

4.  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.

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

_LLS____  _RWA __  __TLP___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001059459	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	20020108	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION		
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	134.04	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.