MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:          13 June 2002       
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002068023  

	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	
	Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman		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 upgrading his undesirable discharge to honorable.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge should be upgraded for the following reasons:  (1)  that he has been a good citizen since discharge; (2) that his record of convictions by civil authorities while he was in service indicates only minor or isolated offenses; (3) that his ability to serve was impaired by his youth and immaturity, low aptitude scores and level of education, his deprived background, marital and family problems, personal problems, financial problems, use of alcohol and certain other problems; and (4) that he tried to serve and wanted to, but just couldn’t or wasn’t able to.        

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the Memorandum of Consideration prepared to reflect the consideration of Docket Number AR1999018096 by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) on 8 July 1999.
 
The applicant submits a Statement of Material Contentions which lists the reasons why his discharge should be upgraded to honorable.

The applicant submits a character reference letter from a pastor who describes the applicant as a happily married man, good father, reliable worker, and responsible individual. 

The applicant submits a character reference letter from a former employer who describes the applicant as an excellent employee and trusted friend.

The Disabled American Veterans, as counsel for the applicant, was notified of the applicant’s pending review by the Board; however, no brief was submitted.

The applicant’s submissions were not previously considered by the ABCMR and are therefore considered new evidence which will be considered by the Board.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  

Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth the policy and procedures for the ABCMR.  It provides that, if a request for 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 that was not in the record at the time of the Board’s prior consideration.  This includes but is not limited to any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted.  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 one 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 Board considered the applicant’s contention that he has been a good citizen since his discharge.  However, good post service conduct alone is not a basis for upgrading a discharge.

2.  The applicant’s contention that his record of convictions by civil authorities while he was in service indicates only minor or isolated offenses, is not supported by the evidence of record.  There is no evidence of record available to the Board which shows the applicant had a record of convictions by civil authorities while he was in the Army. 

3.  The Board considered the applicant’s contentions that his ability to serve was impaired by his youth and immaturity, low aptitude scores and level of education, his deprived background, marital and family problems, personal problems, financial problems, use of alcohol and certain other problems.  However, the applicant has provided no evidence to support these contentions.         

4.  The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which contains one nonjudicial punishment, three special court-martial convictions and 384 days of lost time and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge. 

5.  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.

6.  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

CLA____  BJE_____  DPH_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002068023	
SUFFIX		
RECON	Yes  -  Originally boarded on 19990708	
DATE BOARDED	20020613	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19680823	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness	
BOARD DECISION	Deny	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.