MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:      4 March 1998
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC97-10731

	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.  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms.	Karen J. Newsome		Chairperson	
	Mr.	Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Member	
	Ms.	Margaret K. Patterson		Member	

	Also present, without vote, were:

	Mr.	Karl F. Schneider		Acting Director	
	Mr.	Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	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:  The removal of a letter of reprimand (LOR) and his rebuttal to the LOR from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

APPLICANT STATES:  That he received a LOR for having a blood alcohol content of .10 on 3 November 1995.  In August 1996 he was notified that a bar to reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) had been imposed against him based on the same LOR.  He goes on to state that he investigated and discovered that in fact his blood alcohol level was only .085.  He also states that he appealed the bar to reenlistment under the QMP based on his newly discovered evidence and his appeal was approved.  He continues by stating that had he known the information at the time, the LOR would not have been mandated. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

On 3 November 1995, while serving in the pay grade of E-6 at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, the applicant received a general officer LOR for driving a motor vehicle on 24 March 1995 with a blood alcohol content of .10 or higher.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the LOR and elected to submit a statement in his own behalf in which he asserted that he realized that his actions were irresponsible and unbecoming of an NCO.  He also indicated that with the exception of the incident in question he had a distinguished record that he wished to be considered.  He further stated that while he understood the seriousness of his actions, he believed that the LOR should be filed in records as temporary.

After reviewing the applicant’s rebuttal, the imposing authority directed that the LOR be filed in the applicant’s OMPF and Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ).    

On 1 August 1996 the applicant was notified that after a thorough and comprehensive review of his OMPF, the Calendar Year 1996 Sergeant First Class/ANCOC Promotion/Selection Board determined that he should be barred from reenlistment under the QMP based on the 3 November 1995 LOR contained in his OMPF.  The applicant, with the support of his chain of command, appealed the bar to reenlistment and his appeal was approved on 11 March 1997.
There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) to have the LOR transferred to the restricted fiche of his OMPF.  However, in the processing of this case, the applicant’s application was forwarded to the DASEB for an advisory opinion.  Consequently, the DASEB accepted his application to this Board as an application to that board to transfer the LOR.  After reviewing the applicant’s request as well as his records, the DASEB concluded, in effect, that the applicant’s contention that the LOR was unjustly imposed against him based on an incorrect alcohol level was without merit.  The DASEB opined that while the alcohol level appeared to be incorrect, the fact was that he had in fact been drinking and driving and a LOR may be issued for any action which the imposing authority believes reflects poorly on a soldier’s performance, judgement, or potential.  The DASEB found his argument disingenuous and elected to deny his request.

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 LOR was properly imposed and is properly filed on the performance fiche of the applicant’s OMPF.

2.  The Board, like the DASEB, agrees that the applicant’s contention that he should never have received the LOR based on his actual blood alcohol content is without merit.  Not only was it established that the applicant had consumed alcohol, he admitted as much in his letter of rebuttal to the LOR.

3.  The Board also believes that the applicant’s logic in this matter is indicative that he has not learned his lesson and that the LOR has not served the purpose for which it was intended.  Inasmuch as the applicant has failed to show that an error or injustice exists in his case, the LOR should remain in his OMPF as presently filed.    

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

                       DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director