MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            18 December 2001                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2001062576

	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:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyl		Member	
	Mr. Jose A. Martinez		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 he was honorably discharged.  

APPLICANT STATES: That he was not paid for over 6 months because of a mix-up in his records.  He indicates he “pleaded no contest”. (sic)

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

On 30 July 1979, he enlisted in the Army.  He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13B (Cannon Crewman).  

During the period 10 November 1979 through 22 September 1981, he served in Germany.

On 18 May 1980, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for stealing a jacket.  His punishment included forfeiture of $200.

On 14 October 1980, he received NJP for disobeying a lawful order and being disrespectful to his superiors on two occasions on 5 October 1980.  His punishment included reduction to pay grade E-1 (suspended), forfeiture of $100, extra duty for 7 days, and restriction for 7 days.

On 21 February 1981, he received NJP for assaulting another soldier.  His punishment included forfeiture of $126, extra duty for 14 days, and restriction for 7 days.

On 14 September 1981, he received NJP for abandoning his guard duty.  His punishment included a forfeiture of $112 (suspended) and reduction to pay grade E-2 (suspended).

On 24 November 1981, he was convicted by a general court-martial of two specifications of robbery and of aggravated assault by inflicting grievous bodily harm.  His approved sentence included confinement at hard labor for 24 months (the excess of 18 months suspended for 9 months), total forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to pay grade E-1, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD).

On 21 April 1982, the Army Court of Military Review affirmed the findings and the sentence.

On 11 August 1982, he indicated that he did not request a separation physical examination.

On 11 August 1982, 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 2 years, 1 month, and 23 days of creditable service and 322 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.

This Board operates under the standard of presumption of regularity in governmental affairs.  The standard states, in effect, that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board must presume that all actions taken by the military were proper.  There is nothing in the records or in the evidence submitted by the applicant that overcomes this presumption.

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

_jam_    __inw___  __tl___          DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001062576	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	18 December 2001	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.