MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:    

	BOARD DATE:          04 APRIL 2002                    
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001064466

	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. Gale J. Thomas		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		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 changing his term of enlistment from 2 years to 9 months. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he submits new evidence in support of his request.  

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the decisional document prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AR2001054499) on 
6 September 2001.

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 applicant’s submissions are new evidence that requires Board consideration.

The applicant submits a copy of his DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) along with a certificate of completion of Phase II-Legal Specialist Course on 2 February 2001, a certificate showing completion of Phase I Reserve Component Nonresident Advanced Individual Training Course of the Judge Advocate General’s School on 16 January 2001, and a list of start dates for the Legal Specialist Course.  

The applicant contends that he extended his enlistment for 2 years to ensure he had sufficient time to complete the requirements for legal specialist training, at which point he would reenlist as a legal specialist and qualify for a bonus.  However, the applicant was able to complete his training in three months, and wants the period of his extension reduced from 2 years to 9 months.

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.  Even though the applicant submits documents showing the class start dates for the Legal Specialist Course, and the date he completed the legal specialist course, there is no evidence to show that his extension was based on his desire to complete schooling.

2.  There is no evidence to show nor has the applicant provided documentation to show that his extension was in error, or that an injustice has occurred. 

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

__AAO__  __RWA__  __KYF __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001064466	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020404	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	112.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.