MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            23 March 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031350

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger Able		Member	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		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 (BCD) be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he desires to have his discharge upgraded because he has waited long enough to make sure that his lifestyle is at a Christian high.  He goes on to state that he was drunk at the time he committed his crime and does not remember it but he has asked everyone to forgive him.  He further states that he desires to be able to obtain VA benefits and to die an honorable man instead of being deemed less than honorable.

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

He was inducted in Bakersfield, California with a moral waiver on 28 August 1969.  He successfully completed his training at Fort Ord, California and was transferred to Vietnam on 26 January 1970 for duty as an infantry indirect fire crewman.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-3 on 3 February 1970 and was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Air Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal for his service in Vietnam.  He completed his tour in Vietnam on 15 December 1970 and was transferred to Fort Hood, Texas.

On 26 January 1971 he was convicted by a general court-martial of using force and violence to steal $30.00 from another soldier, committing robbery and assault on another soldier by striking him with a wine bottle, by using force and violence to steal 14 cents from another soldier, by using force and violence to steal 11 cents from another soldier, and for committing assault on another soldier with the intent to commit robbery.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 1 year, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a BCD. 

The court of military review affirmed the findings and sentence of the general court-martial on 13 December 1971.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions pursuant to the sentence of a general court-martial on 4 April 1972.  He had served 1 year, 6 months, and 26 days of total active service and had 376 days of lost time due to confinement.

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.  Although the Board does have the authority to affect the punishment given by a court-martial conviction, it does not have the authority to disturb the finality of such a conviction.  The Board believes that the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore appear to be appropriate considering the available facts of the case.

3.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention of good post-service conduct; however, given the seriousness of the charges against him during a relatively short period of time, the discharge appears to be appropriate under the circumstances. 

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 the aforementioned 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

___slp___  ___ja ___  ___ra ___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031350	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/03/23	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	BCD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1972/04/04	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	GCM 	
DISCHARGE REASON	675	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  675 	144.6800/A68.00/BCD	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.