MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            10 July 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003085030

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Roger W. Able		Chairperson	
	Mr. Larry C. Bergquist		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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 dismissal under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he simply wants to clear his name and that 34 years of living with his discharge is sufficient punishment.  In support of his application he submits a copy of a letter he wrote to the President of the United States dated 18 September 2002.

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

He was commissioned as a United States Army Reserve second lieutenant on 4 June 1956, upon graduating from the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC).  He entered active duty on 2 November 1956 and was detailed as a field artillery officer.  He subsequently accepted a Regular Army commission and was promoted to the rank of captain on 18 October 1961.

On 14 April 1966, while stationed in Wackernheim, Germany, charges were preferred against the applicant for three specifications of larceny.

On 11 May 1966, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for resignation for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request he stated that he understood that if his request was accepted, that he would be discharged under other than honorable conditions.  The general    court-martial convening authority recommended disapproval of his request and on 25 July 1966, the Special Assistant, Office of the Under Secretary of the Army, denied his request. 

He was convicted on 12 July 1966, by a general court-martial, pursuant to his pleas of guilty, of the charge of three specifications of larceny.  He was sentenced to dismissal from the service.  The convening authority approved the findings and sentence of the general court-martial on 13 August 1966 and directed that he be transferred to the United States pending his appellate review. 

On 23 December 1966, the United States Army Judiciary, Office of The Judge Advocate General of the Army, affirmed the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority.

The applicant submitted a petition for a grant of review by the United States Court of Military Appeals and his request was denied.

Accordingly, he was dismissed under other than honorable conditions on 15 August 1967, pursuant to a duly reviewed and affirmed court-martial conviction.  He had served 10 years, 9 months and 14 days of total active service.

A review of the applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) fails to show that he earned any awards.  Additionally, he was counseled for failure to pay his just debts, an Army Emergency Relief loan. 

Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, provides, in pertinent part, that the Board is not empowered to set aside a conviction.  Rather it is only empowered to change the severity of the sentence imposed in the court-martial process and then only if clemency is determined to be appropriate.  Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed.  

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 type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore appear to be appropriate considering the available facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to the seriousness of his offenses and his overall undistinguished record of service.

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

___lb ___  __be ____  ___ra___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003085030	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/07/10	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1967/08/15	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-120/GCM	
DISCHARGE REASON	GCM	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  675	144.6800/A68.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.