APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, the applicant requests reconsideration of the Board’s decision that denied his request to upgrade his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. APPLICANT STATES: That he realizes he made a mistake and is responsible for his actions, however, he’s been punished. At the time of his action he was advised by legal counsel to request an other than honorable discharge. He wanted to stay in the Army, but was told that his career was over and to try to upgrade his discharge after his separation. He’s a family man and works hard. He’s not in trouble with the law and he is sorry for what he did. He wants a personal appearance before a board if at all possible. NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein is a summarization of the applicant’s military records prepared to reflect the Board’s original consideration of his case on 29 January 1997. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded: 1. The applicant has provided neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request. While the Board has taken cognizance of the applicant’s contrition and his good post-service conduct, neither of these factors, either individually or in sum, warrant the relief requested. 2. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement. 3. 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 Karl F. Schneider Acting Director