MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  4 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999031008

	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:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Ms. Carol J. Suiter		Member	
	Mr. James P. Stueve		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:  In effect, upgrade of his bad conduct discharge to a more favorable one.

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant offers no statement in his behalf.

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

He enlisted and entered active duty on 1 November 1977.  He completed training as a radio operator and was assigned to Fort Carson, Colorado.  He was convicted by special court-martial on 7 May 1979 of 68 days AWOL, striking an officer, and disrespect to an officer.  The approved sentence included confinement for 3 months.

He was again convicted by special court-martial on 8 July 1980 of possession, transportation, and sale of marijuana.  The approved sentence included confinement for 2 months and a bad conduct discharge.  He was placed on voluntary excess on 24 September 1980 pending approval of the discharge.  His sentence was affirmed on 23 February 1981 and he was discharged effective 10 March 1981.

His DD Form 214 (report of separation) shows that he was discharged under authority of AR 635-200, chapter 11, as a result of court-martial.  His character of service was bad conduct.  He had 2 years, 8 months, and 4 days creditable service and 219 days lost time.

On 24 February 1982 the Army Discharge Review Board, in a unanimous decision, denied his request for an upgraded discharge.  The ADRB found no evidence of extenuating or mitigating circumstances for his actions that led to a bad conduct discharge.

Army Regulation 635-200 provides the policy for separation of enlisted personnel.  It provides that a bad conduct discharge will be given a soldier pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial.  The appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered executed.

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 regulation.  The discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted.

2.  While he may have been young at the time of his enlistment, he was 21 years of age at the time of his first AWOL and 22 years of age when convicted of the drug offenses.

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 the aforementioned 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

__LS___  __CS___  ___JS___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
				     Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031008	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000504	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	BCD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19810310	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH 11	
DISCHARGE REASON	A68.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.