MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  9 July 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002068608

	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. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern		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 bad conduct discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he went through retraining before he was discharged.  He was young and made some mistakes he regrets.

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

He enlisted and entered active duty on 12 March 1980, at 17 years and 9 months of age.  He completed infantry training and was assigned to Germany.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-3 effective 1 March 1981.  On 22 July 1981, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for disobeying a lawful order.

On 18 November 1982, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of four specifications of AWOL for a total of 189 days.  The approved sentence included a bad conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor, a forfeiture of pay, and reduction to the pay grade of E-1.  Effective 25 March 1983, he was placed on excess leave pending discharge.  The sentence was affirmed on 13 August 1983 and ordered duly executed.

Effective 22 December 1983, the applicant was discharged in the pay grade of 
E-1 under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 3, as a result of trial by court-martial.  He had 2 years, 6 months, and 14 days creditable service and 350 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

On 30 March 1994, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.  On 19 August 1996, the ADRB voted to deny the applicant's request based on the absence of evidence that clemency was warranted in his case.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 3, of that regulation, in effect at the time, provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel with a bad conduct discharge pursuant to an approved sentence of a special court-martial.  The appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed.

With respect to records of courts-martial and related administrative records pertaining to court-martial cases tried or reviewed under chapter 47 of Title 10 (or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Public Law 506 of the 81st Congress)), action under subsection (a) may extend only to correction of a record to reflect actions taken by reviewing authorities under chapter 47 of this title (or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Public Law 506 of the 81st Congress)); or action on the sentence of a court-martial for purposes of clemency.
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 contention that he was young and made regrettable mistakes is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The Board notes that the applicant was almost 20 years of age at the time of his first AWOL.  There is no information in the available record, or provided by the applicant, which forms a basis for a discharge upgrade based on clemency.

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

__jl___  ___ra___  ___tr_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002068608	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020709	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	BCD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19831222	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, chapter 3	
DISCHARGE REASON	A68.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.