MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           12 April 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999030632

	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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Robert G. Hinkle		Chairperson	
	Mr. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. James P. Stueve		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 previous application to correct his records by upgrading his discharge to honorable 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that  he served in combat in Korea for 15 months, refused a commission and was probably one of the youngest master sergeants in the Army.  He was told that he would be recommended for a Bronze Star Medal. 

He believes that it is unfair not to recharacterize his discharge because: 
(1) he should not continue to suffer the consequences of a bad discharge,  (2) he would not receive the same discharge under current standards, (3) his average conduct and efficiency marks were excellent and very good, (4) he received letters of commendation, (5) he had 15 months of combat, (6) he was wounded in action, (7) his record of promotions, (8) his 2 prior honorable discharges (9) his record of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, UCM indicate only minor offenses, (10) he has been a good citizen since discharge, (11) his record of court-martial convictions indicate only isolated offenses, (12) psychiatric  problems impaired his ability to serve, (13) he was not working in the field he was trained for, (14) he requested compassionate reassignment but was transferred back to the unit that had initiated elimination action, (15) he should have gotten a medical discharge.  

When his unit was sent to Beirut, Lebanon he began to have nightmares, flashbacks and hallucinations.  He believes that this was the early onset of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  He went to see a psychiatrist.  “Part of the diagnosis was aggravated personality, etc.”  He got worse after the unit returned to Germany and began to drink.  He could get no help. He was the victim of racism and was reduced from sergeant first class to sergeant.   

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 15 March 1995 (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant’s contentions constitute new argument that requires Board consideration.

Department of Defense Directive 1332.28 (discharge review board procedures and standards) provides that “current standards” means that a discharge shall be deemed equitable unless the policies and procedures under which the applicant was discharged differ materially from those currently in effect, to the extent that 

the current policies or procedures represent a substantial enhancement of rights and there is substantial doubt that the same result would be obtained under the current policies or procedures.

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.  There is no available evidence that the applicant served in combat for 15 months (he was authorized two service stars on the Korean Service Medal and no two campaign periods in that conflict total 15 months).  Neither is there any available evidence that he was wounded in action.  His combat service, his  attaining the rank of sergeant first class, his earning high ratings, his receipt of commendations and other accomplishments are noted by this Board.  But, they are outweighed by the record of misconduct that led to his discharge.  The applicant’s overall record of service has already been considered and the Board decided that the discharge was properly characterized. 

2.  There is no regulatory enhancement of rights that would result in a better discharge under “current standards.”  If by “current standards” the applicant simply means that in general terms standards are less demanding and that his misconduct would not result in the same type discharge, the Board disagrees.  Today’s standards are more demanding, not less.  He would probably have received the same type discharge, but it would have happened quicker.  Such misconduct on the part of an experienced NCO simply would not be tolerated in today’s Army.

3.  In the absence of evidence that at the time of the discharge or the conduct that led to the discharge the applicant was so impaired by mental emotional or psychological problems that he could not tell right from wrong and adhere to the right, the PTSD issue does nothing demonstrate an error injustice in the discharge.

4.  There is no evidence that the applicant was medically unable to perform his assigned duties.

5.  The applicant offered no evidence to support his contention about his post service adjustment and conduct and none to show that he was the victim of racial prejudice.

6. In the earlier consideration of this case, prior to reaching the determination that it was not in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file, the Board looked at the entire file.  It was only after all other aspects had been considered and it had been concluded that there was no basis to recommend relief that the Board considered the statute of limitations.  Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it undoubtedly would have recommended relief in spite of the failure to submit the application within the 
3-year time limit.  The decisional document may not clearly state that the Board considered the merits of the case.  However, the display of the basic facts of the period of service, the details of the discharge processing and the provisions under which that processing occurred demonstrate that the merits of the case were considered. The Board does not normally deny applications simply because they were not submitted within 3 years.

7.  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.

8.  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.

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__RGH__  __BJE  __  __JPS__  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
   Director, Army Review Board Agency

	AR1999030632	
		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000412	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19591024	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A92.21	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.