MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           16 April 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002067449

	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	
	Ms. Melinda M. Darby		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 served his country, got hooked on drugs in Nam, and made some bad mistakes after returning home.  Further, he indicates he was only 21 years of age.

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

On 9 June 1970, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years.  He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 72B (Communications Center Operator).  He was advanced to pay grade E-4, effective 15 July 1971.

During the period 6 March 1971 to 10 February 1972, he served in a unit in Vietnam.

On 26 May 1972, he was convicted by a Summary Court-Martial (SCM) of being absent without leave (AWOL) during the period 24 to 30 March and 14 April to     3 May 1972.  His sentence included a reduction to pay grade E-3, forfeiture of $222 and extra duty for 14 days.

On 20 July 1972, he was convicted by a SCM of absenting himself from his place of duty on 26 May 1972 and for being AWOL during the period 6 to 9 July 1972.  His sentence included a reduction to pay grade E-1 (suspended for 30 days), forfeiture of $192 and extra duty for 15 days.

On 8 November 1972, he was convicted by a Special Court-Martial of being disrespectful to a superior commissioned officer on 13 September 1972, of unlawfully striking a noncommissioned officer on 14 September 1972, and of stealing money from another soldier on 21 October 1972.  His sentence included a reduction to pay grade E-1, confinement at hard labor (CHL) for 6 months, forfeiture of 2/3 of his pay ($190) for 6 months and a bad conduct discharge (BCD).

On 17 April 1973, he was placed on excess leave pending completion of the appellate review.

On 15 October 1973, the sentence of reduction to pay grade E-1, CHL for 6 months, forfeiture of $190 pay per month for 6 months and BCD was affirmed and ordered executed.

On 26 November 1973, he was discharged under conditions other than honorable under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, as a result of a court-martial conviction.  His separation document indicates he had 2 years, 11 months and 1 day of creditable service, 197 days of lost time and 189 days of excess leave.

On 10 October 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board found his discharge proper and equitable and denied his request for upgrade.

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.

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 applicant’s service did not then meet and does not now meet the standards of honorable service as defined in Army Regulation 635-200.  Therefore, the characterization of the applicant’s current discharge is appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  There also is no apparent error, injustice, inequity, or change in policy or standards on which to base recharacterization of his discharge to honorable.

3.  The Board acknowledges the applicant’s contentions of age and being a drug abuser; however he was 21 years of age and there is no mention of abuse of drugs in the available records.

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

_mmd____  _jtm____  _inw___   DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002067449	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.