MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  3 April 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002079155

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Patrick H. McGann		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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 be upgraded to an
honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his discharge was in error.  He had a drinking problem that led to his actions and separation.  He is proud of his service and would like to be just as proud of his discharge.  In support of his application, he submits copies of his:  DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty); DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States); two character reference letters; and a letter from the City-County Bureau of Identification (CCBI). 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he enlisted on 5 May 1992, as a cannon fire directions specialist, for a period of 4 years.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-4 effective 1 March 1995. 

The applicant was barred from reenlistment on 29 October 1995 for involvement in an alcohol related incident.  

He was convicted by a general court-martial on 5 December 1995, of violations of two lawful regulations, assault with a dangerous weapon, drunk and disorderly conduct, wrongfully and willfully discharging a firearm, and of communicating a threat to another service member.  His sentence consisted of a reduction to the lowest enlisted grade, a forfeiture of pay, confinement for 12 months, and a bad conduct discharge.

His commander reviewed the applicant's bar to reenlistment during the month of January 1996 with the recommendation that the applicant’s bar remain in effect.

On 6 March 1996, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) prepared a post-trial recommendation.  The SJA listed the applicant's charges and indicated that the applicant had received a field grade Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on 15 February 1994, which was unavailable for review by this Board.  The SJA recommended that the applicant's sentence be approved.  The general court-martial authority approved the sentence on 22 March 1996.

His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows that he was in confinement from 5 December 1995 to 17 September 1996 (286 days).

On 5 August 1997, the Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority.

On 20 February 1998, orders were published confirming the applicant's sentence.  It also indicated that the portion of the sentence pertaining to confinement had been served.

On 8 May 1998, the applicant was discharged from the Army pursuant to the sentence of a general court-martial and was issued a bad conduct discharge.
He had served 5 years, 7 months, and 2 days of creditable service and had 
286 days of lost time due to confinement.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 24 September 1999.  However, his case was ineligible for review by the ADRB due to his conviction by a general court-martial. 

The applicant provided two character references letters, which stated that he is a valuable employee, dedicated and devoted, performed a variety of different jobs, and has excellent work habits.  The CCBI indicated that no local arrest information was found on the applicant. 

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 3-11 of that regulation provides that a soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial.  The appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence duly 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.  The applicant has provided no evidence to show that his discharge was unjust.  He also has not provided any evidence sufficient to mitigate the character of his discharge.

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 regulation.

3. The Board notes the applicant's character references that stated he was a valuable employee, dedicated and devoted, performed a variety of different jobs, and had excellent work habits.  It was also noted that no local arrest information was found on the applicant.  However, this evidence is insufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge.

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 this 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

__sc____  ___pm___  ___ra___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002079155	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030403	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	BCD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19980508	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR  635-200, CHAP 3 SEC IV	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	30	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.