APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his conviction be overturned and he be granted a new trial.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the victims admitted they lied to get him into trouble.  All the proceedings, from the Article 32 hearing to the trial and the members of the panel, were unfair and prejudicial.  He submits as supporting documentation excerpts from the Article 32 hearing and the trial, the defense counsel’s motion for relief, and official statements concerning an assault on him by relatives of one of the victims.

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

He was born on 22 March 1963.  He completed 13 years of formal education.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 May 1988.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 54B (Chemical Operations Specialist).  He was promoted to Sergeant E-5 on 1 December 1990.

On 12 February 1993, the applicant was convicted by a general-court martial of attempting to commit sodomy with a child under 16 and making a false official statement.  He was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, to confinement at hard labor for 3 months, to forfeit $814 pay for 3 months and to be reduced to pay grade E-1.

On 7 May 1993, the applicant was placed on excess leave.

On 4 February 1994, the U.S. Army Court of Military Review affirmed the sentence.

On 6 September 1994, the applicant was discharged with a bad conduct discharge pursuant to his court-martial sentence.  He had completed 6 years,     1 month and 9 days of creditable active service and had 70 days of lost time.

Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552, as amended, precludes any action by this Board which would disturb the finality of a court-martial conviction.

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.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

2.  Trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses charged.  The applicant’s contentions relate to evidentiary and procedural matters which were finally and conclusively adjudicated in the court-martial appellate.

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:

                       GRANT

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




                             				 Loren G. Harrell
					 	 Director