MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            29 March 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999032797

	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. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Mr. James P. Steuve		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 application to correct his records by upgrading his bad conduct discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was young and immature and used bad judgement.  He notes that he made complete restitution.  He states that he has totally transformed his life for the better.  He reports that he is two semesters away from receiving his bachelor’s degree.  He submits the decision in a Coast Guard Court of Military Appeals case that he believes is relevant for comparison.  He also submits several documents to show that he has tried to better himself.  He hopes for a career in law enforcement but is believes that his discharge may hamper him.  

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case on 20 December 1995  (COPY ATTACHED).

The documentation concerning the applicant’s post service activities is accepted as an implied argument that his post service behavior and conduct warrants the requested relief.  As such, it constitutes new evidence and argument that requires Board consideration.

The applicant’s college transcript shows he has earned 120 credits and requires 57 more to complete his program leading to a Bachelor of Arts in criminal justice.  He has a “C” average.

He also submits a certificate of training as a security officer for the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency .  A letter of recommendation from a business owner who reports that he has known the applicant for five years, that he was employed as a fraud investigator for 3 years and that he has high moral standards.  Another businessman states that the applicant has high ethical and moral standards and an incredible capacity in the field of private investigation.  He credits the applicant with saving his company $35,000.00 in theft loses.

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.  It is noted that the personal letters of recommendation are addressed to “To Whom it May Concern” and not to this Board.  There is no indication that the writers are aware of the applicant’s discharge or the purpose to which these letters are being used.

2.  The applicant’s post service accomplishments and his desire to improve his situation are noted.  However, they are not so exceptionally meritorious as to outweigh the misconduct (more than $10,000.00 in bad checks, impersonating an authority and wearing  unauthorized insignia) for which he received a BCD from a general court-martial.  Additionally, the Board notes that he had only about 1 month of apparently offense free service. 

3.  The Board considers applications on a case by case basis, does not establish precedents by its own decisions and is not bound by court decisions.  The court decision cited is not considered evidence relative to 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

__RGH__  ___MDM_  __JPS __  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999032797	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000329	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	105.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.