MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

IN THE CASE OF:     

BOARD DATE:           16 May 2000  
DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000035896

	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	
	Mr. Gerald E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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 Bad Conduct Discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he knows that he made several bad decisions that resulted in his court-martial and discharge.  He asks that the Board grant him the same type of clemency as was afforded draft evaders by President Ford.  He indicates that, although he can’t locate the records, he was treated for combat fatigue and that this combined with catching his wife in an affair with his sergeant should be considered as mitigating factors.  He points out that he did serve in combat during the Korean Conflict and asks that the Board help out an old vet.

COUNSEL STATES:  In effect, that they support the applicant’s request in light of the marital problems that the applicant was having and his honorable service during the Korean Conflict.

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 24 March 1982 (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant submits a request for clemency and two statements from friends who describe the applicant as being dependable and caring, a good family man and a hard worker.  

These documents were not available to the Board previously and constitute new evidence that requires Board review.

Presidential Proclamation 4313, issued on 16 September 1974, provided for the issuance of a clemency discharge to certain former soldiers who voluntarily entered into and completed an alternate restitution program specifically designed for former soldiers who received a less than honorable discharge for AWOL related incidents between August 1964 and March 1973.  Upon successful completion of the alternate service, former members would be granted a clemency discharge by the President of the United States, thus restoring his or her affected civil rights.  The clemency discharge did not effect the underlying discharge and did not entitle the individual to any benefits administered by the Veterans Administration.  Soldiers who were AWOL entered the program by returning to military control and accepting a discharge in lieu of trial 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 Board notes the applicant’s wartime service and his post service activities, however, these activities are not so exceptionally meritorious as to outweigh the offences that resulted in his discharge.

2.  The Board has no authority to award the applicant a clemency discharge.  The clemency discharge program produced largely symbolic results.  However granting the applicant an honorable or general discharge would entitle him to tangible and intangible benefits, which he forfeited by his behavior.  

3.  It is noted that there is no available evidence to show that the applicant has applied to any state or federal agency to determine if there is a similar program that would restore his civil rights and benefits.

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

__AAO__  ___VBC_  __LE ____  DENY APPLICATION

   Carl W. S. Chun
    Director, Army Board for Correction 
      of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000035896	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	20000516 	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	105.01	
2.	A93.07	
3.	A93.23	
4.		
5.		
6.