MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:             8 January 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2001062571

	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. Luther L. Santiful 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Mr. Terry L. Placek		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: An upgrade of his discharge be granted based on leniency.

APPLICANT STATES: He indicates that he has no justification for what he did, except that he was young and stupid.  Further, he indicates that the sentence of the court-martial was not unfair or unjust, he made a series of bad choices and paid the price for them.  He spent 3 years in Fort Leavenworth.  He also states he is trying to get his life in order.

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

During the period 12 November 1986 through 19 January 1987, he served in the Army Reserve Delayed Entry Program.

On 20 January 1987, at age 17, he enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76V (Material Storage and Handling Specialist).  

During the period 26 May 1987 through 5 May 1988, he served in a unit in Germany.

On 5 May 1988, in consonance with his plea, he was convicted by a general court-martial of three specifications of using marijuana between September 1987 and January 1988; five specifications of distributing marijuana between October and December 1987; and one specification of possessing drug paraphernalia on 22 January 1988.  His approved sentence included a dishonorable discharge (DD), confinement at hard labor (CHL) for 5 years, total forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and payment of a fine in the amount of $2,000.

On 5 October 1988, the Army Court of Military Review affirmed the findings and the sentence.

On 17 October 1988, confinement in excess of 3 ½ years was remitted.

On 4 April 1989, his sentence to a DD was ordered executed.

On 5 May 1989, he was discharged with a DD under paragraph 3-10, Army Regulation 635-200, as a result of a court-martial.  His separation document indicates he had 1 year and 15 days of creditable service and 1 year, 3 months, and 1 day of lost time.

The maximum punishment for his offense was a DD, CHL for 15 years, and total forfeiture.  His sentence was less than the maximum punishment prescribed.

Army Regulation 635-200, at paragraph 3-10, then in effect, provided that a soldier would be given a DD pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general court-martial.  The appellate review had to 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.  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.  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

_tlp____  __rwa___  __lls___       DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001062571	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020108	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.