MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:    

	BOARD DATE:            11 February 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028082

	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.

	Ms. Antoinette Farley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		Member	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		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 to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  He has spent the last 30 years paying for a young 
18-year old boy’s mistake by not thinking, as he should have during his enlistment.  He further states that he has lost good jobs because of his past mistakes and now, at the age of 52 has a chance to get a job with a correctional system, only if he receives a general discharge.  He provides a detailed letter of explanation for his past mistakes.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years on 15 July 1964.  He completed basic training at Fort Knox, Kentucky, and he began his advanced individual training at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, on 2 October 1964.

On 13 November 1964, the applicant received nonjudical punishments (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code Military Justice, for absenting himself from his appointed place of duty on 8 November 1964 for one day.  His punishment included forfeiture of $10.00 pay; restriction for 14 days and extra duty for 14 days to run concurrently.

His records are not entirely clear if he ever completed his military occupational specialty (MOS) training at Aberdeen, because on 28 November 1964 he was reassigned to a new training unit at Fort Dix, New Jersey.  Thereafter, his MOS was shown as MOS 57A10 (Duty Soldier).  

The applicant’s record reveals three court-martial convictions:

On 24 October 1966, the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial at Fort Riley, Kansas, of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 11 January 
1965 to 18 August 1966.  His sentence included forfeiture of $40.00 pay per month for 12 months; confinement at hard labor for 12 months; and reduction to pay grade E-1.

On 22 November 1966, the general court-martial convening authority modified the sentence to show forfeiture of $40.00 pay per month for 10 months; confinement at hard labor for 10 months; and the reduction.  He then further amended the sentence to show that any portion of the confinement after 
24 January 1967 was suspended for 5 months and thereafter would be remitted without further action.  He served his confinement at the Post Stockade, Fort Riley, Kansas. 

On 19 July 1967, he was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 11 February to 1 June 1967.  He sentence included forfeiture of 
$31.00 pay per month for 6 months, confinement with hard labor for 6 months (suspended).  On 15 October 1967, he departed AWOL and on 2 December 1968, the unexecuted portion of the applicant’s sentence to confinement to hard labor was vacated, but since he was AWOL the sentence could not be implemented at that time. 

On 22 January 1969, he was convicted by a general court-martial at Fort Riley, in conformance with his plea of guilty of being AWOL from 15 October 1967 to 
21 November 1968.  He was sentenced to forfeiture of $50.00 pay per month for 12 months; confinement to hard labor for 12 months; and a BCD. 

On 13 January 1969, the general court-martial convening authority reduced the sentence to forfeiture of $50.00 pay per month for 9 months; confinement at hard labor for 9 months; and the BCD.  His confinement was directed to be at the U.S. Army Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.   

On 6 March 1969, the United States Court of Military Review affirmed the finding of guilty of the AWOL, approved the sentence, and ordered the BCD to be duly executed. 

On 14 April 1969, General Court-Martial Order Number 352 was published by the U. S. Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth announcing that the sentence had been affirmed and since the provisions of Article 71c having been complied with, directed that the remainder of the sentence, the BCD to be duly executed.

On 28 April 1969, the applicant was discharged, with a BCD, under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of conviction by court-martial, other.  He had completed 8 months and 30 days of active military service and he was shown with 1161 days lost time due to AWOL and confinement.  

The statutory authority under which this Board was created (Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552, as amended) precludes any action by this Board which would disturb the finality of a court-marital conviction.  The sentence may be modified by the Board based only upon a finding of clemency.

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 repeated offenses of AWOL as charged.

3.  Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterized the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted.

4.  The applicant has provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command’s action was erroneous or that his service mitigated his multiple incidents of misconduct from 2 October 
1965 through 21 November 1968.

5.  The Board congratulates the applicant on his efforts to improve his employment opportunity since departing the Army.  However, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

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

__MKP__  __GDP__  __TBR  __  DENY APPLICATION

					Karl F. Schneider
					Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028082	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000211	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	BCD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19920501	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 CH 11	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	67.90	
2.	68.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.