MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            17 December 1998 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12654

	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	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Karen L. Wolff		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		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 more favorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his discharge should be upgraded because he had an incompetent defense lawyer that presented no evidence at his trial.  He further states that a better discharge would be beneficial to him in his endeavors within the community.

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

He enlisted on 27 December 1977 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed his training as a motor transport operator and was transferred to Fort Knox, Kentucky.

On 3 October 1978 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for possession of marijuana.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra duty for 7 days.

On 25 July 1980 he reenlisted in the pay grade of E-4 for a period of 3 years and stabilization at Fort Knox.

On 8 July 1981 he pled guilty to all charges and was convicted by a general court-martial of three specifications of wrongfully possessing, transferring, and selling 20 tablets of lysergic acid diathylamide (LSD), two specifications of wrongfully possessing two ounces of marijuana, one specification of wrongfully transferring two ounces of marijuana, and one specification of wrongfully selling two ounces of marijuana.  He was sentenced to be discharged from the service with a bad conduct discharge, to be confined at hard labor for 9 months, to forfeit $250.00 of pay per month for 9 months, and to reduced to the pay grade of E-1.  The convening authority approved the findings and sentence on 18 August 1981 and forwarded the case to the Court of Military Review for the appellate review.

On 8 January 1982, while in confinement at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, the unexecuted portion of the sentence pertaining to confinement was remitted effective 13 January 1982 and the applicant was placed on excess leave per his request pending the outcome of his appellate review.

The Court of Military Review affirmed the findings and sentence of the general court-martial and on 15 June 1982 orders were published directing that that unexecuted portion of the sentence that had not been remitted be duly executed.

According, the applicant was discharged on 29 July 1982 pursuant to the sentence of a general court-martial and was issued a bad conduct discharge.  He had served 4 years and 28 days of total active service and had 189 days of lost time due to imprisonment.
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.  The applicant was properly discharged pursuant to a sentence by a general court-martial with no indication of any violations of any of the applicant’s rights.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board and appear to be without merit.  The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant pled guilty to all of the charges against him at his trial by court-martial.  In doing so, it appears that there was essentially no defense to present.  Nevertheless, the applicant was afforded due process in that he was afforded the opportunity to assert his innocence at a trial by court-martial if he chose to do so and was further afforded an appellate review to ensure that his due process rights were protected.

4.  The applicant has not presented any evidence to support his contentions. Accordingly, the Board finds that the charges against the applicant are too serious and his record of service is too undistinguished to warrant relief in his case.

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

__klw ___  ___mm__  __klw___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12654	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	1998/12/17	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(BCD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1982/07/29	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	GCM.  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	GCM	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  A68.00		
2.  A90.00		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.