MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            12 March 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2001062845

	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	
	Ms. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		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 to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he should have been given a better discharge based on his good service.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years as a private, pay grade E-1, on 8 April 1980.

He was advanced to specialist, pay grade E-4 on 10 December 1981.

On 3 March 1982, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for disobeying a lawful order of a noncommissioned officer.  His punishment included reduction to pay grade E-3 (suspended until 3 July 1982), forfeiture of pay and extra duty.  He did not appeal the punishment.

On 19 March 1982, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for being absent without leave (AWOL).  His punishment included reduction to pay grade E-3 (suspended until 18 September 1982) and forfeiture.  He did not appeal the punishment.

On 2 July 1982, he was reported AWOL and was dropped from the rolls of the Army on 1 August 1982.  He was returned to military control on 14 September 1982.

On 13 October 1982, he was tried by special court-martial for 1 specification of AWOL and 1 specification of possession of marijuana.  He was found guilty and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 36 days and reduction to pay grade E-1 and forfeiture.

On 22 February 1983, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for failure to report to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment included forfeiture, extra duty and restriction.  He did not appeal the punishment.

On 22 April 1983, he was tried by special court-martial for 2 specifications of intent to defraud, by falsely altering a certain United States Treasury check, with intent to transfer a certain US Treasury check; and 2 specifications of attempting to steal US currency, the property of the US government.  He was found guilty of the charges of intent to defraud by altering a certain US Treasury check and not guilty of attempting to steal US currency.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 100 days, forfeiture and to be discharged from the service with a bad conduct discharge.  He was confined from 9 June to 24 August 1983.

The Judge Advocate General of the Army forwarded the record of trial to the Court of Military Review.  The US Army Court of Military Review affirmed the findings of guilty and his sentence was affirmed on 14 May 1984.

He was retained in the service for the convenience of the government and he was then discharged on 9 October 1984, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, as a result of court-martial, in pay grade E-1.  He was issued a BCD.  

On 16 July 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 3-11, of this regulation, in effect at the time, provided for the separation of personnel with an approved sentence to a BCD, after completion of the appellate review and after the sentence had been affirmed.

Paragraph 3-7 of this regulation provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.

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 view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.  

2.  The Board has noted his contention that he should have a better discharge based on his good service.  However, trial by special court-martial was warranted by the serious nature of the multiple offenses charged, the conviction is final and the sentence is commensurate with the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted, and the BCD is commensurate with misconduct.

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 this 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:

_inw____  _gjw_____  _rjw____  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001062845	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020312	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.