MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           6 June 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002069183

	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. Stanley Kelley		Chairperson	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		Member	
	Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaugnessy, Jr.		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 her bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES: That she has been out of the Army for 18 years and was not told that she could request this action.

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

During the period 20 August to 31 October 1979, she was assigned to the Army Reserve Delayed Entry Program.

On 1 November 1979, she enlisted in the Regular Army.  She completed her required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 72E (Telecommunications Center Operator).

During the period 16 June 1980 to 13 June 1982, she served in a unit in Germany.

On 28 December 1981, she was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for her failure to go to her designated place of duty on 30 November 1981, and for disobeying a lawful regulation by allowing an unauthorized person to operate a motor vehicle.  Her punishment was a forfeiture of $149 and 5 days extra duty.

On 2 September 1982, she was convicted by a General Court-Martial of assault, conspiracy, and communicating a threat.  Her sentence included forfeiture of all pay and allowances and a BCD.  The sentence was approved on 8 November 1982. 

On 21 October 1983, the US Army Court of Military Review affirmed the findings of guilty but set aside the forfeiture of any pay and allowances becoming due on or after the date of the action and the sentence.  The appellate review was completed on 20 April 1984.

On 29 May 1984, she was discharged with a BCD under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, based on the result of a court-martial conviction.  Her separation document indicates she had 4 years, 1 month, and 15 days of creditable active service, 137 days of lost time, and 219 days of excess leave.

Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 11 provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel with an approved sentence to a BCD, after completion of the appellate review and after the sentence had been affirmed.

The statutory authority under which this Board was created (Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, as amended) precludes any action by this Board, which would disturb the finality of a court-martial conviction.  This Board may take 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.  Therefore, the Board concludes that clemency is not warranted in this case.

2.  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.

3.  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:

_sk_____  __jtm___  _teo____    GRANT

________  ________  ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________ DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002069183	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020606	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.