MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            4 February 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002075739

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Ronald J. Weaver		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 general discharge to honorable. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his records and personal life have been scarred by his brief period in the Army when he was a teenager.  He further states that his actions were due to a lack of maturity and his failure to accept the weight of his actions.  However, he has since become a productive member of society and desires to have his discharge upgraded.  He goes on to state that since his discharge he has obtained his high school General Educational Development (GED) Certificate and a 2-year diploma in the machine tool trade.  He has maintained employment with major aerospace companies that have a drug free policy, has been married to his wife for 17 years, has two children that he participates in their education and coaches their sports teams.  He also states that he teaches in a local technical college, that he has no drug charges, that he completed a drug rehabilitation program, that he enlisted in the Georgia Army National Guard (GAARNG) and recently completed Jump School.  However, he still feels shame and failure over his discharge and would like his post service conduct to be considered in upgrading his discharge.  In support of his application he submits a copy of his certificate indicating his completion of a drug awareness program, four character references, and documents showing his attendance and completion of airborne training.  

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 (AR1998014413) on 14 April 1999.

The applicant’s contentions are new argument and/or argument that require Board consideration.

The supporting documents submitted by the applicant indicate that he completed airborne training at Fort Benning, Gerogia, on 15 March 2000, while serving in the pay grade of E-4 as a member of the GAARNG.  He also completed an       8-week Drug Awareness Program on 13 June 2000.  He also submits two character references from two officials at an Air Force base in Alabama, one letter from his minister and one letter from a vice president of instruction/student services.

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) that was not in the record at the time of the Board’s prior consideration.  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 1 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.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 9 of that regulation contains the authority and outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol and/or drug abuse.  A member may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, or successfully complete a rehabilitation program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical.  Characterization of service will be determined solely by the soldier’s military record that includes the soldier’s behavior and performance during the current enlistment.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  It is issued to soldiers whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  There are no automatic provisions, nor have there ever been, to automatically upgrade a discharge made under these provisions.

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.  While the Board applauds the applicant’s post-service conduct and accomplishments, the qpplicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that his discharge was in error or unjust.
 
2.  The Board finds that his discharge appropriately characterizes the period of service in question and while it appears that he has exhibited excellent         post-service conduct, that in itself is not sufficiently mitigating to characterize his previous service as fully honorable.

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

___mm__  __rjw ___  ___clg___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002075739	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/02/04	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1983/08/25	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/ch9 	
DISCHARGE REASON	Drug rehab failure	
BOARD DECISION	deny	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  680	144.6900/A69.00 drug rehab fail	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.