MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:         

	BOARD DATE:            28 January 1999 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12351
				   AR1998012690

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Robert W. Garrett		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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:  That his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.    	  

APPLICANT STATES:  That his punishment was excessive for the offenses of which he was found guilty.  In support of his application, he submits two letters of explanation.  In one letter, he addresses the length of time he was held in pretrial confinement for the Article 32 investigation (8 months), the resulting final charges, and contends that a variety of much lesser forms of punishment could have been imposed against him.  In the second letter, he describes his military accomplishments and states that his trouble began when he was transferred from his original duty station to one of a “very different environment and mental climate”.  Citing as example, a special court-martial for his first offense (disrespect to a commissioned officer by failing to salute while under cover) and being reduced from E-4 to E-1.   

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

He was inducted on 25 February 1969 for a period of 2 years.   He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Germany for duty as a medical corpsman.  He served in Germany for almost 2 years.

On 9 September 1970 he was convicted by a special court-martial of failing to go to his appointed place of duty, two specifications of being AWOL and disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer by failing to salute.  He was sentenced to a reduction to E-1.  The convening authority approved the sentence on
2 October 1970.  

The applicant was convicted by a general court-martial on 11 May 1971 of being AWOL from 1 October 1970 to 5 October 1970 and possessing a false and unauthorized Department of the Army Form 31 (Request and Authority for Leave).  He was sentenced to be discharged from the service with a bad conduct discharge, confinement for 2 months, forfeiture of $75.00 for 6 months and reduction to E-1.  The convening authority approved the sentence on 25 June 1971.

The Court of Military Review affirmed the findings and sentence on 2 August 1972.  

Accordingly, he was discharged pursuant to the sentence of a general court-martial on 26 September 1972.  He was issued a Bad Conduct Discharge Certificate.  He had served 2 years, 9 months and 22 days of total active service. He had 150 days lost time due to AWOL and confinement, prior to the scheduled expiration of his term of service and 133 days lost time subsequent to the expiration of his term of service.

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.  Trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses charged.  Conviction and discharge were affected in accordance with applicable law and regulations.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The contentions of the applicant have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.  In addition, the applicant’s overall undistinguished record of service is not sufficient to warrant relief.    

4.  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.

5.  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

__rwg___  ___ls  ___  ___clg __  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12351/AR1998012690	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	1999/01/28	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	BCD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1972/09/26	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	GCM	
DISCHARGE REASON	GCM	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  105.010		
2.  144.680		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.