MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:             13 December 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:     AR2001062065

	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. Lee Cates		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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 records be corrected to show that he was honorably discharged because he feels he deserves another chance to correct his mistakes.

APPLICANT STATES: He provides three letters of support; a copy of General Court-Martial Order 42, US Army Hawaii, dated 31 October 1969; and, four pages of testimony by himself and another soldier.  He indicates he was only 22 years of age and a very good soldier.

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

On 3 August 1967, he was inducted into the Army.  He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).

During the period 7 January 1968 through 12 May 1969, he served in Vietnam.

On 21 September 1968, while in Vietnam, he was convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of being absent without leave (AWOL) for the period 12 June through 20 August 1968.  His sentence included confinement at hard labor (CHL) for 6 months (suspended), forfeiture of $68 pay per month for 6 months, and reduction to pay grade E-1.

On 16 December 1968, while in Vietnam, he was convicted by a SPCM of failure to obey a lawful order on 10 October 1968.  His sentence included CHL for         6 months, forfeiture of $73 pay per month for 6 months, and reduction to pay grade E-1.

On 21 April 1969, he was convicted by a general court-martial of disobeying a lawful command from a superior officer on 23 January 1969, to go to the field.  His approved sentence included a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD), forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and CHL for 15 months.  In the mitigation of his sentence, his age was considered.

On 29 January 1970, the US Army Court of Military Review affirmed the findings and the sentence.

On 2 April 1970, a physical examination cleared the applicant for discharge.

On 6 April 1970, he was discharged with a BCD under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, based on the result of a court-martial conviction.  His separation document indicates he had 1 year, 1 month, and 25 days of creditable service and 557 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.

The three letters of character reference provided by the applicant are from family members and friends.  They attest to his good and pleasant personality, a hard worker, honest, sincere, and willing to help anyone when necessary.

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.  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.

2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

3.  The character reference letters indicate that the applicant’s post-service conduct is admirable; however, these letters do not serve as a sufficient basis to upgrade his discharge that was the direct result of numerous acts of indiscipline. 

4.  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.

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

_sac____  _mdm____  _rks____ DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001062065	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011213	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.