MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  13 September 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001057278

	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. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Terry L. Placek		Member	
	Mr. John E. Denning		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 bad conduct discharge as a result of trial by court-martial be upgraded to honorable or general.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his young age during service was the basis of his poor decisions.  An upgraded discharge would improve his employment opportunities.

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

He enlisted at 17½ years of age and entered active duty on 6 April 1981.  While still in training he was punished twice under Article 15, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); once for absence from his place of duty and once for disrespect and disobeying the lawful order of a commissioned officer.  He completed training as a personnel specialist and was assigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma.  He was never promoted above the pay grade of E-2.

On 8 January 1982 he was convicted by a summary court-martial of willful destruction of government property and willful damage of a privately owned vehicle.  On 27 August 1982, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for disorderly conduct, use of indecent language, and disobeying the lawful order of a non-commissioned officer.  

On 31 January 1983, a bar to reenlistment was approved for the applicant based on his record of undesirable behavior.  The applicant was convicted by a special court-martial on 13 April 1983, of larceny of $35 from a fellow soldier.  The approved sentence included confinement for 2 months and a bad conduct discharge.  The applicant spent 1 month in confinement and 318 days in an excess leave status pending discharge.  The sentence was affirmed on 8 May 1984 and ordered duly executed.

Effective 8 June 1984 the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, as a result of court-martial.  He had 3 years and 3 days creditable service.

Army Regulation 635-200 provides the authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  It provides that a soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence by a general or special court-martial.  The appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed.

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 applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The record shows that the applicant was provided numerous methods of discipline to show him what behavior was not acceptable.  The applicant was almost 19½ years of age when he stole money from a fellow soldier.

2.  The applicant’s bad conduct discharge as a result of trial by court-martial appropriately characterizes his service.  There is no basis to upgrade his discharge.

3.  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 this requirement.

4.  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

__fe___  ___tp___  __jd______  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001057278	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010913	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	BCD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19840608	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	A68.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.