MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:          14 February 2002                    
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001064911

	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	
	Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis 		Member	
	Mr. John E. Denning		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 discharge to general, under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he had a drug problem and was never afforded any treatment, rehabilitation or counseling.  He contends that he never had a drug problem prior to his enlistment, that he never gave the Army any trouble until approximately the last six months of his enlistment and that he has been drug free since 1998. 

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the decisional documents prepared to reflect the Board's previous considerations of the case (AR1999029073) on 
13 January 2000 and the case (AR2000048975) on 27 February 2001.

The applicant submits a Certificate of Recognition, dated 11 December 1999, for the Spiritual Training and Education Program as prescribed by the San Diego Rescue Mission.  

The applicant submits a narcotic addict evaluation, dated 24 July 2001, from the Quest Therapeutic Community, which describes positive progress in his treatment programs and recommendations for his aftercare program.  

He submits a completion certificate, dated 7 July 1999, for Relapse Prevention as prescribed by the San Diego Rescue Mission; a certificate of completion, dated 24 May 2001, for Anger Management; and a completion certificate, dated 31 July 1999, for Chemical Dependency as prescribed by the San Diego Rescue Mission.

He also submits a report of General Educational Development (GED) test results, dated 11 February 1997, which was previously considered by the Board; and a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 25 November 2001, which includes a letter of explanation.      

The applicant’s submissions are new evidence and argument that require Board consideration.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently 

meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth the policy and procedures for the ABCMR.  It provides that, if a request for 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 that was not in the record at the 
time of the Board’s prior consideration.  This includes but is not limited to any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted.  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 one 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.

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 he had a drug problem and was never afforded any treatment, rehabilitation or counseling, is without merit.  There is no evidence of record available to the Board, and the applicant has provided no evidence, which shows that he was diagnosed as drug dependent by military officials prior to his discharge for misconduct.  The applicant’s only evidence of drug possession occurred when he was arrested by civil authorities. 

2.  His contention that he never gave the Army any trouble until approximately the last six months of his enlistment is not supported by the evidence of record.  Evidence of record shows that the applicant received four nonjudicial punishments between 30 August 1974 and 17 May 1976.  His records also show that he was absent without leave from 18 June 1976 to 23 June 1976 and from 25 July 1977 to 30 August 1977.

3.  The Board also considered the applicant’s contention that he has been drug free since 1998 and his post service achievements which are supported by the documentation provided with his application.  However, good post service conduct alone is not a basis for upgrading a discharge.      

4.  The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included four nonjudicial punishments, one civil conviction and 396 days lost and determined that his record of service was not satisfactory. 

5.  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.

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

JNS_____  BJE____  JED____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001064911	
SUFFIX		
RECON	AR2000048975 – 20010227	
DATE BOARDED	20020214	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19771206	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 635-200 Chapter 14	
DISCHARGE REASON	Misconduct – Conviction by civilian authorities	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.