MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            8 March 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999024370

	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. Leland A. Edwards		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz Jr.		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 dishonorable discharge (DD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD) and that he be allowed to retire.

APPLICANT STATES:  That there were errors in his trial by general court-martial; that he served 110 days of a 120 day sentence to confinement, but a DD is too harsh; that he was an excellent soldier with an outstanding record and is now an upstanding citizen.  He states that he deserves clemency.

In support of his application, he submits:  a 15 January 1999 memorandum to the Board; numerous letters of support from former commanders and fellow soldiers; citations from his military awards; past Officer Evaluation Reports (OER); a prior HD; and a copy of his college diploma.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 August 1977 and remained on continuous active duty until dishonorably discharged on 13 January 1997.  On 6 December 1988, he was honorably discharged as a staff sergeant in order to accept an appointment as a warrant officer, property accounting technician.

By all accounts, the applicant was an excellent soldier.  He was a skilled property accounting technician and received excellent OERs from his supervisors and commanders.  Unfortunately, on 27 February 1992, he became involved in the larceny of Government property involving more than $4,000 in computer printers. Court-martial charges were preferred against him and he was tried by a general court-martial on 22 August 1992.  Although he pleaded not guilty to all charges and specifications, he was found guilty of larceny of military property, of a value in excess of $100.  He was sentenced to a DD and 120 days’ confinement.

The applicant served his sentence to confinement at the United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.  Upon completion of his sentence, he was returned to his unit at Fort Lewis, Washington, to await the outcome of appellate reviews.  On 5 March 1993, he was placed on excess leave.  Following completion of all appellate reviews, his DD was executed on 13 January 1997.  He had 19 years, 4 months, and 19 days of creditable service, of which 1411 days were in an excess leave status.  He had 110 days of lost time due to confinement.

The Military Justice Act of 1983 (Public Law 98-209), provides, in pertinent part, that military correction boards may not disturb the finality of a conviction by court-martial.

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.  The applicant was a property accounting technician in the grade of Chief Warrant Officer Two.  His job involved accounting for and safeguarding military property.  He violated the trust placed in him as a warrant officer and a supply technician by stealing the very property he was charged to protect.  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.

2.  The applicant's contentions relate to evidentiary and procedural matters which were finally and conclusively adjudicated in the court-martial appellate process, and furnish no basis for recharacterization of the discharge.

3.  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.

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

__rvo___  __eja____  __ewl___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
				     Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024370	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000308	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	DD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19970113	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C5	
DISCHARGE REASON	A72.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	105.0100	
2.	110.0000	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.