MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  3 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999028145

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Lee Tinsley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz		Member	
	Mr. John H. Kern		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 under other than honorable conditions discharge (UOTHC) be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions).

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was charged in a special court-martial for AWOL but was discharged for a civil conviction.  He was punished for the civil conviction by civil law and discharged from the Army for the same offense – civil conviction.

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

He was born on 6 January 1948.  On 23 February 1965, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army in MOS 11E10 (Armor Crewman).

On 25 April 1967, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of AWOL and breaking arrest.  His approved sentence was forfeiture of $25.00 for 
3 months, confinement at hard labor for 1 month (suspended for 3 months), hard labor without confinement for 45 days and reduction to pay grade E-1.

On 18 June 1968, the applicant was convicted a second time by a special
court-martial of 178 days AWOL.  His approved sentence was hard labor without confinement for 3 months.

On 10 July 1970, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, as a result of a civilian conviction, under conditions other than honorable.  He had completed 2 years, 9 months and 5 days creditable service and had 754 days of lost time.  The applicant also had a total of 
6 periods of AWOL, 3 periods of confinement, 2 Article 15s, and 2 special courts-martial.  He had been awarded the Parachutist Badge, the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Vietnam Service Medal, the Vietnam Campaign Medal and the Sharpshooter Badge (Rifle).

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board in May 1975 citing to the Board that he was discharged due to a civilian conviction because he stole a credit card to support his drug habit while in the Army.  The Board was convened on 19 February 1976 and the applicant was notified of the denial of his request to upgrade his discharge on 14 April 1976.

AR 635-206 states, in pertinent part, that discharge may be ordered of individuals who, during their term of active military service, have been convicted by a civil court..  An individual who has been convicted by such courts under applicable statutes, and sentenced to confinement for more than 6 months, will be considered for discharge.  An individual who is to be discharged under this section will be given an undesirable certificate of discharge.

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.  Both trials by court-martial were warranted by the gravity of the offenses charged.  His discharge for civil conviction was effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted.

2.  Although it has been nearly 30 years since the applicant was issued a UOTHC discharge, his overall service record does not outweigh the gravity of his offenses.  Accordingly, relief (or clemency) is not warranted.  Additionally, the applicant has provided nothing to demonstrate postservice good citizenship of such a nature that it would mitigate his offenses and thereby warrant relief.

3.  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

  RO          EL              JK            DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028145	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000503	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  110	Upgrade Discharge	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.