MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


	IN THE CASE OF:   
	


	BOARD DATE:                              
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC

	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 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:  In effect, that his officer resignation be revoked, that he be assigned to the USAR Control Group, that his Armor Officer Basic Academic Evaluation Report (AER) be removed from his record, and that he be scheduled for recycle in the Armor Officer Basic (AOB) course.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was declared a non-graduate of AOB by an AOB Faculty Board and given an AER that showed he had failed to achieve course standards with an unsatisfactory rating in leadership skills.  While attending AOB, he was handicapped by a marriage separation and divorce.  He was not provided any other options by the AOB Faculty Board such as to recycle in the course, transfer to the Individual Ready Reserve, or a waiver.  He did not receive formal counseling from AOB leadership on career options.  He states that the AER is invalid and the Faculty Board findings are unjust.

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

That he enlisted in the Regular Army from 4 December 1980 to 3 December 1984 and was honorably released from active duty as an E-4 and transferred to the USAR Control Group.  He was honorably discharged from the USAR Control Group on 3 December 1986.

Army National Guard records have not been provided or found, but it appears from the documents provided by the applicant that he enlisted in the Texas Army National Guard on 21 April 1987 and rose to the rank of E-6.  On 30 June 1990, he was accepted into the Army National Guard State Officer Candidate School from which he graduated on 20 July 1991 and was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant (2LT).  He was ordered to active duty for training (ADT) for AOB at Fort Knox to report on 6 July 1992.

Prior to beginning AOB, the applicant experienced marriage problems with his wife in Texas.  He answered "Yes" on an inprocessing questionnaire indicating that he had considered suicide in the previous 2 years.  As a result, he was seen by a psychologist at the post hospital community metal health clinic.  In the counseling session with the psychologist, the applicant stated that he had made an error in answering the question but wanted to talk about his marriage problems.  A follow up counseling session was conducted on 27 July.  On 
27 August 1992, the applicant received a letter from his wife that resulted in him crying in his company commander's office and the commander calling the clinic to ask for a 28 August appointment for the applicant.  The applicant received psychological counseling on 28 August.  The psychologists analysis was that the applicant was emotionally dependent on his wife and marriage, obsessive, and narcissistic.

During this time frame, approximately 22 - 31 August 1992, the quality of the applicant's participation in AOB training was diminished.  He did not follow the directions of the instructors, "cussed out" an instructor, his classmate crew complained about his negative impact on his crew, he received several counseling statements from his captain student advisor, and he was moved to another crew as a rehabilitative transfer.  He also received counseling statements for falling out of physical training (PT) runs in August and September and in one case, after falling out, leaving PT without authorization and going to his residence.  He received another counseling statement for failing uniform inspection on 7 August and failing to take immediate corrective action.  In all of these incidents, the applicant cites his marriage problems as the underlying reason for his actions.

Between 20-25 October 1992, the applicant failed mounted tactical training.  In a 27 October letter from the Lieutenant Colonel Chief of Armor/Cavalry Tactics, Armor School, to the Commander, 2-12 Cavalry, Armor School, a request was made for an academic board to consider the performance of the applicant, stating that he had failed the mounted tactical training, that he was not prepared to be an armor platoon leader, and that he be recycled through the tactics portion of the course. 

On or about 30 October 1992, the applicant's course was finished and he returned to Texas.

On 11 December 1992, the commander of the applicant's AOB school unit recommended that the applicant be reviewed by a Faculty Board, stating that he had displayed a poor attitude, had difficulty grasping basic concepts, that he was not capable of being an effective platoon leader, and should be decommissioned. He cited the applicant's academic ranking as 79 out of 80, substandard performance, failure in uniform inspection, falling out of PT runs, poor attitude, being argumentative, leaving instruction, failing the mounted tactical training, and inability to respond to counseling.  The regimental commander considered the evidence and on 6 January 1993 directed that a Faculty Board be convened.

The Faculty Board was convened on 17 February 1993 at Fort Knox.  The applicant was notified and asked to appear before the board but given the option to submit a statement and be represented by counsel.  The applicant chose the latter option.  In his submitted statement from Texas, he defended his actions as a consequence of his marital problems, complained of lack of adequate counseling and the school faculty not understanding his marital problems, and submitted his intent to resign.  The board reviewed the evidence, the applicant's statement, the remarks from his legal counsel, and determined that the applicant should be declared a non-graduate of the officer basic course, that the ARNG should accept his resignation, and that he be decommissioned.  An Academic Evaluation Report was issued to that effect.

The applicant resigned and was discharged from the ARNG on 21 February 1993 and transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) from which he was further discharged on 18 December 1996.

On 1 February 1996, the applicant appealed his AER to the ARNG Readiness Center in Arlington, Virginia.  Because his AER appeal requested that he be reinstated and given redirection of his military career, the appeal was returned to the applicant for referral to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records.

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.  That the applicant was declared an AOB non-graduate due to substandard academic and leadership performance.  These failures occurred through out the course with more noted incidents at mid course connected with his marriage break up.

2.  That the applicant was provided mental health and leadership counseling but did not respond sufficiently to the counseling to overcome his personal problems and concentrate his efforts to succeed in AOB.  Officers are expected to be able to operate and succeed under pressure and be able to concentrate their efforts to ensure mission accomplishment and provide for the welfare of those they lead inspite of personal concerns.  Inability to do this is basic failure of leadership as an officer.

3.  That the applicant stated his intent to resign his commission on 5 February 1993 prior to the convening of the 17 February 1993 Fort Knox Armor School Faculty Board and apparently submitted his resignation to the ARNG before the board recommendation was approved.  Orders were issued by the ARNG on 
5 March 1993 to discharge the applicant effective 21 February 1993 prior to the approval of the board recommendations and the 2 July 1993 AER formally declaring the applicant a non-graduate.

4.  That in his letter to the Faculty Board, the applicant stated his intent to resign rather than ask to be recycled through AOB or ask for other options.  However, the board considered all avenues available to the applicant, and based on his performance and stated intent, recommended that most appropriate and just solution: declare him a AOB non-graduate, accept his resignation, and recommended decommissioning.  The publishing of his AER approved these recommendations and contains no error and or injustice.

5. The record does not contain any evidence nor has the applicant submitted any evidence to prove his contention of error or injustice.  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



INDEX

CASE ID
AC
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
YYYYMMDD
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR .  .  .  .  .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.