MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  25 September 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001057469

	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. Paul A. Petty		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		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 he be reinstated to the rank of Master Sergeant, pay grade E-8.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he has been punished long enough with the findings of the court-martial and being reduced.  Several general officers and even a former President were found guilty; the President stayed in office and the general officers were allowed to retire with their rank and full benefits.

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

That he enlisted in the Army Reserve on 1 May 1973 and then enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 August 1973 as a combat engineer.  He advanced through the ranks to Master Sergeant (MSG), pay grade E-8, on 1 July 1993.  While assigned to the Headquarters Company, U. S. Army Engineer Center and Fort Leonard Wood, he was convicted by a summary court-martial on 30 March 1998, of violations, between 3 and 23 October 1995, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 92 (failure to obey order or regulation), two specifications of violating Fort Leonard Wood Regulation 350-12 (Training); and Article 134 (Indecent Assault).  As evidenced by his initials, he was advised of his rights.  The applicant agreed to a summary court-martial and pled guilty to the charges. He was sentenced to reduction to pay grade E-7, Sergeant First Class; forfeiture of 2/3 pay for one month; and restriction for 60 days suspended until retirement was finalized or until 1 June 1998.  The sentence was approved by the Commanding General, a Major General, on 10 April 1998.

On 31 May 1998, the applicant was honorably and voluntarily released from active duty by reason of sufficient service for retirement with 22 years, 5 months, and 3 days total active service and 2 years, 7 months, and 27 days inactive service.  He retired in the rank of Sergeant First Class, pay grade E-7.

The UCMJ punishment limitations for the violation of Article 92 is a dishonorable discharge or bad conduct discharge, 2 years confinement, and total forfeiture; and for Article 134, is a dishonorable discharge or bad conduct discharge, 
5 years’ confinement, and total forfeiture.

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.  There is no evidence in the record of error or injustice in the applicant’s reduction in grade nor has he presented any evidence of error or injustice.  The applicant did plead guilty to the charges and his sentence was within the punishment limits established under the UCMJ.  He was advised of his rights.

2.  Cases are decided on their own merits, based on evidence and the record, and not by comparison with any other cases.

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

__js___  __le____  ___rb___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001057469	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010925	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	133 – Reduction in Grade	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.