MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:         

	BOARD DATE:            3 March 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999018684

	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. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Edward Williamson		Member	
	Mr. Gary C. Miller		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.      

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his bad conduct discharge should be upgraded based on his 12 years of honorable service prior to the court-martial.  He contends that his wife committed the crime and he was prosecuted for it.  He also contends that a bar to reenlistment would have been more appropriate instead of a bad conduct discharge.

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

He enlisted under the delayed entry program and entered active duty on 
12 September 1978 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, for duty as a clerk typist.  

On 12 April 1979 nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for pawning military property.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to pay grade E-1 (suspended) and 14 days of extra duty.

NJP was imposed against the applicant on 23 November 1983 for operating a vehicle while drunk.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to pay grade E-4.

On 10 December 1985 NJP was again imposed against the applicant for disobeying a lawful order and being disrespectful towards his superior commissioned officer.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to pay grade E-3 (suspended).

On 26 June 1989, the applicant’s commander initiated action to bar him from reenlistment.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation that the applicant scored 0 on his Skills Qualification Test (SQT).  He further stated that the applicant refused to take the SQT test on the scheduled date and refused to reschedule a date to take the test.  The applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The appropriate authority approved the bar to reenlistment on 24 July 1989.

On 16 May 1991, the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial of being AWOL from 14 December 1990 until 31 January 1990, possessing cocaine, larceny, receiving stolen property and disorderly conduct.  He was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for 15 months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to pay grade E-1.  The convening authority approved the sentence on 30 October 1991.  

On 15 December 1992, the Court of Military Review affirmed only so much of the finding of guilty of Charge 1 and its specification (AWOL from 14 December 1990 until 26 December 1990) and set aside the finding of guilty of specification 1 of Charge IV (Receiving stolen property) and dismissed the charge.  The Court affirmed the remaining findings of guilty and the sentence.  His appellate review was completed on 26 May 1993.

Accordingly, he was discharged pursuant to the sentence of a general
court-martial on 21 June 1993.  He was issued a Bad Conduct Discharge Certificate.  He had served 14 years, 1 month and 30 days of total active service. He had 250 days lost time due to confinement.

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 applicant’s military record prior to his court-martial has been considered.  However, it is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant upgrading his discharge given the seriousness of the charges against him.

4. The contention of the applicant alleging that his spouse committed the crime for which he was court-martialed has been noted by the Board.  However, it is not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.

5.  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.

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

___rvo __  ___elw __  ___gcm _  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999018684	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	1999/03/03	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	BCD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1993/06/21	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	GCM  	
DISCHARGE REASON	GCM	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  144.680		
2.  105.010		
3.  100.060		
4.		
5.		
6.