MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           29 November 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001062238

	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 discharge to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he does not believe he deserved an undesirable discharge.  One day after duty hours he was purchasing beer for himself and several friends at the post exchange.  The Officer of the Day happened by with a large dog. The Officer of the Day pulled him off the platform at the post exchange and began to yell at him.  Without thinking, he back talked the Officer of the Day.  Several months later he received a special court-martial and was sentenced to three months in the stockade.  About a month after he was released he was given notice of a hearing to determine whether he should be discharged.  His defense counsel was from an infantry company who did not know how to defend him, so he was given an undesirable discharge.  He provides eight statements of support, including one from a buddy who was an eyewitness to the incident, as supporting evidence.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  Counsel makes no additional contention.

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 25 January 2001 (docket number AR2000046950).

The applicant provides seven statements of support attesting to his post-service reputation for quality work, honesty, generosity, truthfulness, and high moral standards.

The eighth statement is from one of the friends for whom the applicant was buying beer the day of the incident described by the applicant.  The friend basically confirms the applicant’s view of the incident.

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 Board notes that the applicant’s friend substantiates the applicant’s view of an incident which appears to have led to his court-martial.  However, the Board still does not have the facts and circumstances that led to his administrative discharge.  This incident and the related court-martial may have been only one of several incidents that occurred during his service.  Without being able to review the discharge packet, the Board must presume that the type of discharge given and the reasons therefor were appropriate.

2.  The Board is cognizant of the applicant’s good post-service conduct; however, this factor does not warrant granting the relief requested.
3.  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.

4.  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	AR2001062238	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011129	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19560616	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A50.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.