MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

IN THE CASE OF:  

BOARD DATE:          23 February 2000                  
DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999028516

	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. Gerald E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Member	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		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: Reconsideration of his application to correct his records by upgrading his dishonorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that it has been over thirty years since he committed the offenses that led to his discharge. 

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 7 September 1977 (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant submits two letters of character from his minister and dentist.  These documents and the request for an upgrade based upon his post-service conduct and character were not available to the Board previously and constitute new evidence that requires Board review.

The applicant entered active duty at age 17 on 27 November 1968.  He was convicted by a general court-martial of one count of armed robbery, three counts of attempted armed robbery and one count of conspiracy to commit robbery.

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 Board is cognizant of the applicant’s age and level of maturity, however, the applicant had demonstrated his capacity to serve honorably with the completion of both basic and advanced training and award of the military occupational specialty of grader operator.

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.  While the Board has taken note of the applicant's good post-service conduct; the evidence submitted by the applicant fails to show such exemplary accomplishments as to outweigh the serious misconduct committed while he was on active duty.

4.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

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

__RVO__  __EB ___  _RJW___  DENY APPLICATION

	Karl F. Schneider
	Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028516	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	20000223 	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A92.21	
2.	105.01	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.