MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            23 March 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999033329

	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.

	Ms. Deyon D. Battle		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:  In effect, that his dishonorable discharge be upgraded to an honorable or a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That the type of discharge that he received is hindering him from being able to get a job to support his family.

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

He was inducted in the Army on 27 March 1968 and he successfully completed his training as a light weapons infantryman.

The applicant was convicted by a special court-martial on 16 July 1968 of being disrespectful in language toward his superior NCO, of disobeying a lawful order, of unlawfully striking another soldier and of assaulting another soldier.  His sentence consisted of confinement at hard labor and a forfeiture of pay.

Nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant on 4 November 1968, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of restriction and extra duty.

On 21 March 1969, he was convicted by a general court-martial of committing assault with a dangerous weapon against four soldiers and of resisting lawful apprehension.  His punishment consisted of a dishonorable discharge, confinement at hard labor, a reduction in pay grade and a forfeiture of pay.  

The convening authority approved the sentence on 1 October 1969.  Accordingly on 13 October 1969, he was dishonorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, pursuant to a general court-martial conviction.  He had completed 8 months and 2 days of total active service. 

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.  The actions by the Army in this case were proper, and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.

2. 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.

3. While the Board is empathetic to the applicant's personal situation, that in itself is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge when considering the seriousness of his offenses and his otherwise 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 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	AR1999033329	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/03/23	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	DD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1969/10/13	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	671	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  716	144.7300/A73.00	
2.  725	144.7600/A76.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.