APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his bad conduct discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  He makes no statement, but submits statements attesting to his good character.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  That since the applicant has been discharged from the service for more that 25 years and has paid a significant price for his discharge, it is asked that the Board consider clemency in reaching their decision.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 March 1967 and had continuous service until his discharge.  The highest rank he held was Specialist Five, E-5.

On 24 October 1972, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 1 - 12 October 1972.

On 31 May 1973, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 6 November 1972 - 14 February 1973 and from 1 - 18 March 1973 and for stealing a 5-ton truck, property of the U.S. Government.  He was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge and to a reduction to the lowest grade.

On 21 June 1973, the applicant was placed on excess leave.

On 30 July 1973, the U.S. Army Court of Military Review affirmed the sentence.

On 3 August 1973, the applicant was discharged, pursuant to his court-martial sentence, with a bad conduct discharge.

Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552, as amended, precludes any action by this Board which would disturb the finality of a court-martial conviction.

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.  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.
2.  Trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses charged.  Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted.

3.  While the Board has taken cognizance of the applicant’s good post-service conduct, this factor does not warrant the relief requested.

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

                             				 Loren G. Harrell
					 	 Director