APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Reconsideration of his previous request to correct his records by upgrading his discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he drank for ten years after returning from Vietnam and that he has been alcohol free for 20 years.  That all of the periods of AWOL were after he returned from Vietnam.  He is willing to be rehabilitated for his future and he received his GED in 1992.

 NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum of consideration (MOC) prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on       12 May 1993 (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant’s contention that he was impaired due to alcohol after his service in Vietnam which was when he started going AWOL and that he has started rehabilitation by receiving his GED constitutes new argument.  

The military service records show the applicant was assigned to Vietnam from   5 December 1967 to 30 October 1968 and that the AWOL periods totaling 337 days lost time were all after his return from Vietnam.  However, on 17 May 1968 while in Vietnam he was reduced from pay grade E-3 to pay grade E-2.

Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 10c provides, in pertinent part, that reconsideration of a Board decision will be made when additional evidence or other matter including, but not limited to factual allegations or arguments, that were not previously available to the Board has been submitted.

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 applicant’s contention that drinking alcohol after returning from Vietnam which started his problems is not supported by the evidence of record.

2.  In the absence of evidence that the applicant, at the time of the discharge, was so impaired by alcoholic problems that he could not both tell right from wrong and adhere to the right, his contention of diminished capacity does not demonstrate an error or an injustice in the discharge.

3.  The Board notes the applicant’s receipt of his GED and his intentions to rehabilitate to include being alcohol free, however, these unsubtantiated contentions do not demonstrate an error of an injustice in the discharge nor do they warrant relief.

4.  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 a correction of the records 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 Board has never denied an application simply because it was not submitted within the required time.

5.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its pervious decision.

6.  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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director