MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           29 November 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001060928

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers		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 an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he realizes he made a mistake.  He was having family problems.  The mistake has haunted him ever since.  He tried to reenlist but he cannot unless he gets his discharge upgraded.  He cannot pursue a career in law enforcement unless his discharge is upgraded.  He requests a hearing.  He provides his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214, and a letter of support dated 5 August 2001 from a friend as supporting evidence.

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 on 26 April 2001 (AR2000047436).

Army Regulation 635-200 governs the separation of enlisted personnel.  In pertinent part, it states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  An honorable discharge may be furnished when disqualifying entries in the soldier’s military record are outweighed by subsequent honest and faithful service over a greater period of time during the current term of service.  

The Manual for Courts Martial United States, 2000 edition states that the maximum punishment for being absent from one’s unit, organization, or other place of duty for more than 30 days is a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.

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 applicant voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  His request included an admission of guilt.  Had he accepted trial by court-martial instead of requesting discharge and been found guilty, he would have had a Federal conviction on his records and possibly a punitive discharge.

2.  The applicant’s record of service during the 8 months he creditably served, out of an enlistment commitment of 4 years, was not so meritorious as to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  The Board is cognizant of the applicant’s subsequent good record while at the police academy; however, this factor does not warrant the relief requested although it may be a factor for civilian authorities to consider in granting his desire to pursue a career in law enforcement.
3.  Although the applicant requests a (personal) hearing of his case, there is no statutory or regulatory right to a formal hearing.  The Board receives over 10,000 applications each year but normally grants fewer than 15 formal hearings a year.  Formal hearings are granted when the Board determines that a case is so complex or the records so incomplete that only sworn testimony can provide the necessary information.  The Board concludes that a formal hearing is not required in this case.

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

__rvo___  __jpi___  __wdp___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001060928	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011129	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19890107	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.