MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:          16 January 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002075075

	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	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Ms. Marla J. N. Troup		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 dishonorable discharge (DD) to an honorable discharge (HD). 

APPLICANT STATES:  In the enclosed self-authored statement, the applicant again outlines his accomplishments during World War II.  He further provides his version of the facts and circumstances surrounding his being absent without leave (AWOL) in the European Theater of Operations (ETO), and he asks that his discharge be upgraded based on his record of combat service during World War II.  

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 (AR2001065699) on 11 April 2002.  

Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth the policy and procedures for the ABCMR.  It provides that, if a request for a 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 (including but not limited to any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted.  Given the applicant’s reconsideration request has been submitted within the one year time frame, the Board has elected to review his request.  

The applicant was convicted by a general court-martial of being AWOL from 
1 October 1945 through 2 April 1946, and his sentence included a DD.  On 
21 November 1946, subsequent to his confinement, the DD was executed and the applicant was discharged accordingly.  

During its original deliberation on this case, the Board carefully considered the applicant’s entire record of service, which he now outlines in the self-authored statement he provides with this application, and his contention that he was in need of medical and financial assistance.  The review of his service record included consideration of his combat service, including his accomplishments and the awards he received.  Upon the completion of its evaluation, the Board concluded that the applicant’s service during World War II and his need for medical and financial assistance were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief. 

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 carefully considered the new argument presented by the applicant in his enclosed self-authored statement; however, it finds it does not provide new evidence or argument that was not available to the Board during its original deliberations in this case.  In the opinion of the Board, the applicant has simply restated his original claims and expressed his dissatisfaction with the Board’s original decision in his case.  While this is understood, it does not provide a basis for changing the Board’s original decision.

2.  The Board’s original decisional document made clear that the applicant’s court-martial and discharge was accomplished in accordance with the applicable law and regulations in effect at the time.  Lacking any new independent evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and that the applicant’s rights were fully protected throughout these proceedings.  

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__  __AAO  _  __MJNT__  DENY APPLICATION 

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002075075	
SUFFIX		
RECON	AR2001065699	
DATE BOARDED	2003/01/16	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1946/11/21	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON	Court-Martial 	
BOARD DECISION	Deny	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  30	105.0000	
2.  189	110.0000	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.