MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            30 June 1999                             
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999024891

	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. Judy l. Blanchard		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. John P. Infante		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: In effect, that his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded. 

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that although he felt that he did not pass the induction test, he was inducted into the military.  He further states, that after entering the military he had a difficult time adjusting to military life.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant’s military record shows:

The applicant was born on 17 March 1948.  He was inducted into the Army of the United States on 9 July 1968.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 94B10 (Cook).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-2.   

Between January and August 1969, the applicant accepted four nonjudicial punishments under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for two occasions of being absent without leave (AWOL), for two occasions of leaving his appointed place of duty without proper authority and for failure to repair.  His punishment included forfeitures, restrictions and extra duties.
 
On 21 November 1969, the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial of stealing from a commissioned officer by means of force and violence and for two specifications of being AWOL from 15 to 17 September and from 18 to
23 September 1969.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 
9 months, a forfeiture of $80 pay per month for 9 months and to be discharged from service with a BCD.  On 29 January 1970, the sentence was approved by the convening authority.  The record of trial was forwarded to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for review by a board of review.  On 6 April 1970, the United States Army Court of Military Review affirmed the sentence and the finding of guilty.  The record does not indicate that the applicant petitioned the United States Court of Military Appeals for a grant of review. 

On 18 May 1970, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of the Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, as a result of a court-martial.  He had completed 1 year, 2 months and 24 days of active military service.

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

DISCUSSION:

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.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor convincing argument in support of the request.

4.  The applicant has failed to provide any basis for the Board to grant clemency 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

__gdp___  __aao___  ___jpi__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024891	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990630	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	BCD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700518	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chp11 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A68.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.144.6800.00		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.