IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070018010 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, dismissal of charges that resulted in his trial by court-martial, upgrade of his discharge, and award of the Purple Heart. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that due to double standards and racial mistreatment in his military unit (and many other units), he sought to bring attention to his pain, grief, and suffering through the available media. He states that The Overseas Weekly “heard of [his] plight and severely diminished state of mind, hopelessness, and total disappointment, as not a military man, but as a human being” and interviewed him pertaining to the tyranny and mistreatment he received from his superiors. The applicant adds, “my life has been put in suspension” for 36 years due to false testimony and he disputes the claims regarding assaulting the military police officers in question. 3. The applicant subsequently submitted the following: a. self-authored statement, dated 23 January 2008, in which he states that the documents he now encloses with his application will provide evidence of the abuse of authority by the many superior officers over him that caused the onset of fear, paranoia, and his erratic behavior. The applicant adds that he respectfully submits the details of his experience in the Armed Forces while in the Republic of Vietnam in 1969 - 1970 in the hope that the issue of his discharge under other than honorable conditions may be resolved in a fair and just manner. b. a self-authored statement, dated 12 March 2008, in which he states that the presumption of regularity does not apply to his case based on the evidence he submits. The applicant also states that clemency is warranted because it is an injustice for him to continue to suffer the adverse consequences of a bad conduct discharge. The applicant further states, as a direct result of coercion from his commanding officer and the chain of command, controversial and corrupt procedures were applied in his case by the officers that officiated at his court-martial. c. a summary of his service in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) and describes an incident in which the first sergeant ordered him and some other Soldiers he was with to turn in their weapons because of alleged trouble they had caused. The applicant also states that on the evening on 4 May 1969 the camp was shelled by enemy mortars and small arms fire and “[he] was hit in the head with motor shaapnel (sic).” The applicant also states that he was treated for his wound at the 91st Medical Evacuation Hospital and released. The applicant states that he was close to finishing his tour in the RVN when he was sent to the Province of Anke and transferred to another unit. He also states, “it was documented, in writing that no proceedings of any kind would be initiated against [him] provided there were no further so called misbehavior on [his] part.” The applicant adds, in effect, that as a result of an interview he provided months earlier to The Overseas Weekly that described the mistreatment of Soldiers in his unit, he was unfairly given a bad conduct discharge. 4. The applicant asserts that the punishment he received was too severe compared to today’s standards. The applicant adds, “I was given a black lawyer that betrayed the legal code of ethics to the core of his soul” and “my command abused its authority when it decided to discharge me, and decided to give me a bad discharge.” He served 4 months at hard labor in Long Bien Jail outside of Saigon (RVN), was wounded in combat, went through a mental breakdown, and did not receive any veteran’s benefits. The applicant adds he has undergone many trials and tribulations in the last 37 years of his life after getting unfairly discharged from the military. He states that he has met and worked with many elected officials and leaders in his community and is an organizer of the “Gowanus Alumni Committee.” The applicant concludes by stating, “[t]here are thousands of “Black Vets” wrongfully discharged from the military because of another person’s depraved mental attitude” and offers to send further mitigating evidence. 5. The applicant provides 2 self-authored statements, dated 23 January 2008 and 12 March 2008; Standard Form 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care), dated 5 May 1969; photograph labeled “Evidence of Condition;” Headquarters, 62nd Maintenance Battalion (Direct Support), Comment 2, dated 8 December 1969, subject: Bar to Reenlistment; 1-page extract from The Overseas Weekly - Europe Edition, May 1970 and Pacific Edition - May 1971; extract from a publication that contains 2 articles in the Armed Forces section (page 32); Headquarters, U.S. Army Personnel Center, Fort Lewis, Washington, Special Orders Number 210, dated 29 July 1971; Certificate of Achievement, dated 13 May 1997; Certificate of Recognition, dated 7 September 2001; Wall of Tolerance Certificate, dated 15 May 2002; Certificate of Completion, dated 23 March 2006; 2 Security Guard Training Certificates, June 2006; 2 Certificates of Completion, dated 16 June 2006 and 30 March 2007;Office of the President, Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, Proclamation, dated 11 August 2007; copy of article titled Gowanus Houses Old Timers Day, undated; 2 pages containing copies of 4 photographs; Department of Veterans Affairs, New York Regional Office, New York, New York, letter, dated 17 October 2007; letter from Mr. Eric F______, dated 14 December 2007; and Bethel Baptist Church, Brooklyn, New York, letter, dated 2 January 2008. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant’s military service records show that he was inducted into the U.S. Army on 30 April 1968. Upon completion of basic combat training and advanced individual training, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 71B (Clerk Typist). 3. The applicant’s military service records contain a DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) and DA Form 20B (Insert Sheet to DA Form 20 - Record of Court-Martial Conviction). Item 40 (Wounds) of the DA Form 20 is absent an entry, Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) does not show an entry for the Purple Heart, and there are no orders in the applicant’s records showing award of the Purple Heart. In addition, the applicant's name is not listed on The Adjutants General, Casualty Division's, Vietnam Casualty Roster. 4. The applicant's military service records contain a copy of a DA Form 2627-1 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice]), dated 25 September 1968. This document shows that non-judicial punishment was imposed by the battalion commander against the applicant for, on or about 25 September 1968, without proper authority, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed placed of duty, to wit: reveille for Company D, 16th Battalion, 4th Combat Support Training Brigade, Fort Jackson, South Carolina. This document shows that the applicant acknowledged receipt of the Article 15, but declined to submit matters in extenuation, mitigation or defense. The punishment imposed was forfeiture of $36.00 per month for 2 months. The applicant indicated that he did not appeal the punishment. 5. The applicant's military service records contain a copy of a DA Form 2627-1 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 6 May 1969. This document shows that non-judicial punishment was imposed by the company commander against the applicant for, on or about 1300 hours, 5 May 1969, at Tuy Hoa, Republic of Vietnam (RVN), without authority, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed placed of duty, to wit: the 226th Supply and Service Company, POL (Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants) section and, for on or about, 0720 hours, 6 May 1969, at Tuy Hoa, RVN, without authority, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: Work Call formation. This document shows that the applicant acknowledged receipt of the Article 15, but declined to submit matters in extenuation, mitigation or defense. The punishment imposed was reduction to the grade of private first class (PFC), suspended for 90 days, and forfeiture of $30.00 per month for 1 month. The applicant did not appeal the punishment. On 9 May 1969, the suspension of the punishment of reduction to the grade of PFC was vacated by the company commander and the unexecuted portion of the punishment was ordered duly executed. 6. The applicant's military service records contain a copy of a DA Form 2627-1 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 30 May 1969. This document shows that non-judicial punishment was imposed by the company commander against the applicant for, on or about 0645 hours, 26 May 1969, at Tuy Hoa, RVN, without authority, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed placed of duty, to wit: the 0645 hours Work Call formation and, for on or about, 1645 hours, 27 May 1969, at Tuy Hoa, RVN, without authority, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: the 1645 hours Guard Mount formation. This document shows that the applicant acknowledged receipt of the Article 15, but declined to submit matters in extenuation, mitigation or defense. The punishment imposed was reduction to the grade of private (E-2). The applicant indicated that he did not appeal the punishment. 7. The applicant’s military service records contain a copy of Headquarters, 593rd General Support Group (Qui Nhon, RVN), Summary Court-Martial Order Number 34, dated 25 July 1969. This document shows that the applicant was charged with violation of Article 113, UCMJ, with the specification that, on or about 0400 hours, 29 June 1969, at Tuy Hoa, RVN, in an area designated as authorizing entitlement to special pay subject to hostile fire, being posted as a sentinel on Post Number 20, was found sleeping upon his post. The applicant entered a plea of not guilty, was found guilty, and his sentence was adjudged on 22 July 1969. The applicant’s sentence was reduction to the grade of private (E-1), forfeiture of $50.00 per month for 1 month, and to perform extra duty for 14 days. (No previous convictions considered.) On 25 July 1969, the convening authority approved the sentence and ordered the sentence duly executed. 8. The applicant's military service records contain a copy of a DA Form 2627-1 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 1 September 1969. This document shows that non-judicial punishment was imposed by the battalion commander against the applicant for, on or about 18 August 1969, at Pleiku, RVN, without authority, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed placed of duty, to wit: the 0650 hours Work formation; for on or about, 22 August 1969, at Pleiku, RVN, having received a lawful order from his platoon sergeant, willfully disobeying the same; for on or about 27 August 1969, at Pleiku, RVN, without authority, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: the 0650 hours Work formation; for on or about 28 August 1969, at Pleiku, RVN, without authority, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of to duty, to wit: 210th Medical Dispensary, Pleiku Logistics Center, at the appointed time between 0730 and 0900 hours; and for on or about 28 August 1969, at Pleiku, RVN, with intent to deceive, sign an official record, to wit: Sick Register, which was false in that he did not go to sick call. This document shows that the applicant acknowledged receipt of the Article 15 and submitted matters in extenuation, mitigation or defense; however, these documents are not filed in the applicant’s records. The punishment imposed was reduction to the grade of private (E-1), forfeiture of $65.00 per month for 2 months, and 45 days restriction and extra duty. The applicant indicated that he did not appeal the punishment. 9. The applicant's military service records contain a copy of a DA Form 2627-1 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 27 September 1969. This document shows that non-judicial punishment was imposed by the battalion commander against the applicant for, on or about 13 September 1969, at Pleiku, RVN, violating a lawful regulation issued by the Commanding Officer, 45th General Support Group, to wit: 45th General Support Group Regulation 190-1, paragraph 7, concerning curfew hours, a regulation which it was his duty to obey and he did fail to obey the same; for on or about 13 September 1969, at Pleiku, RVN, violating a lawful regulation issued by the Commanding Officer, 45th General Support Group, to wit: 45th General Support Group Regulation 190-1, paragraph 4, concerning off-limits areas, a regulation which it was his duty to obey and he did fail to obey the same; for on or about 15 September 1969, at Pleiku, RVN, violating a lawful order issued by the battalion commander, to wit: the 45-day restriction period beginning 8 September 1969, an order which it was his duty to obey and he did fail to obey the same; for, on or about 24 September 1969, at Pleiku, RVN, without proper authority, failing to go to his appointed place of duty, to wit: the 1250 hours Work Call formation; for on or about 24 September 1969, at Pleiku, RVN, absenting himself from his appointed place of duty, to wit: the Headquarters and Main Support Company, 62nd Maintenance Battalion Tech Supply; and for on or about 25 September 1969, at Pleiku, RVN, absenting himself from his appointed place of duty, to wit: 2 hours of extra duty at Headquarters and Main Support Company, 62nd Maintenance Battalion. This document shows that the applicant acknowledged receipt of the Article 15 and did not submit matters in extenuation, mitigation or defense. The punishment imposed was forfeiture of $65.00 per month for 2 months and 45 days restriction and extra duty. The applicant indicated that he did not appeal the punishment. 10. The applicant’s military service records contain a DA Form 2496-1 (Disposition Form), dated 1 December 1969, subject: Bar to Reenlistment, with comments 1 through 4. This documentation, in pertinent part, summarizes the applicant’s punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, conviction by summary court-martial, and unsatisfactory conduct and efficiency: a. On 1 December 1969, the applicant submitted a statement in his behalf that states, in pertinent part, “[t]here has been a numerous amount of prejudice against me causing a great deal of misunderstanding which have resulted in the charges shown here. I feel that this prejudice was not properly dealt with by this command, and the numerous times I’ve informed my Chain of Command of these prejudice, have resulted in no action in my behalf. I feel that the details I’ve been put on have verified the existing prejudicial treatment I’ve received.” b. On 8 December 1969, in response to the applicant’s statement, the battalion commander stated, “[c]ontrary to PVT E_____’s statement many hours have been spent by the Battalion Command Sergeant Major, Executive Officer, myself and many other persons in the command structure, to counsel PVT E_____ and to find a position where he could perform properly. He did not respond and did only those things which he felt were to his advantage. Many of the counselings were negated because of untruths which [the applicant] presented and later were proven false.” c. On 13 December 1969, the bar to reenlistment was approved by the Commanding General, U.S. Army Support Command (RVN). 11. The applicant’s military service records contain a copy of Headquarters, U.S. Army Support Command (Qui Nhon, RVN), Special Court-Martial Order Number 31, dated 12 June 1970, which documents the following charges, pleas, and findings: a. Charge I, Article 128, UCMJ, with Specification 1, that at Pleiku, RVN, on or about 28 January 1970, the applicant did assault Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2) Edwin C. W_____, a person then having and in the execution of military police duties, by attempting to strike him in the area of his head with a helmet. The applicant entered a plea of not guilty and was found guilty. b. Charge I, Article 128, UCMJ, with Specification 2, that at Pleiku, RVN, on or about 28 January 1970, the applicant did assault CW2 Edwin C. W_____, a person then having and in the execution of military police duties, by striking him on the left hand with a M-16 rifle. The applicant entered a plea of not guilty and was found guilty. c. Charge I, Article 128, UCMJ, with Specification 3, that at Pleiku, RVN, on or about 28 January 1970, the applicant did assault CW2 Samuel P_______, a person then having and in the execution of military police duties, by striking him in the area of the hand and shoulder with a M-16 rifle. The applicant entered a plea of not guilty and was found guilty. d. Charge I, Article 128, UCMJ, with Specification 4, that at Pleiku, RVN, on or about 28 January 1970, the applicant did assault CW2 Edwin C. W_____, a person then having and in the execution of military police duties, by attempting to strike him in the area of the groin with a M-16 rifle. The applicant entered a plea of not guilty and was found guilty. e. Charge I, Article 128, UCMJ, with Specification 5, that at Pleiku, RVN, on or about 28 January 1970, the applicant did commit an assault upon CW2 Edwin C. W_____, by attempting to lock and load a dangerous weapon, to wit: a M-16 rifle. The applicant entered a plea of not guilty and was found not guilty. f. Charge I, Article 128, UCMJ, with Specification 6, that at Pleiku, RVN, on or about 28 January 1970, the applicant did commit an assault upon CW2 Samuel P_______, by attempting to lock and load a dangerous weapon, to wit: a M-16 rifle. The applicant entered a plea of not guilty and was found not guilty. g. Charge II, Article 92, UCMJ, with the Specification, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by the Commanding General, U.S. Army Vietnam, to wit: U.S. Army Vietnam message, dated 21 January 1970, subject: Off Limits, an order which it was his duty to obey, did, at Pleiku, RVN, on or about 28 January 1970, fail to obey the same by being in the city of Pleiku, an off-limits area. The applicant entered a plea of guilty and was found guilty of the charge and specification. h. Charge III, Article 95, UCMJ, with the Specification, at Pleiku, RVN, on or about 28 January 1970, resist being lawfully apprehended by CW2 Samuel P_______ and CW2 Edwin C. W_____, Criminal Investigation Division criminal investigators. The applicant entered a plea of guilty and was found guilty of the charge and specification. i. Charge IV, Article 134, UCMJ, with the Specification of wrongful communication of a threat to injure. The documentation shows that a wrongful communication of a threat to injure was not alleged and that testimony elicited from government witnesses would not constitute a wrongful communication of a threat to injure in the present or in the future. The applicant entered a plea of not guilty and was found not guilty of the charge and specification. j. On 3 March 1970, sentence was adjudged. The applicant’s sentence was to forfeit $50.00 a month per month for 4 months; to be confined at hard labor for 4 months; to be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade of private (E-1); and to be discharged from the service with a Bad Conduct Discharge. (One previous conviction considered.) k. On 12 June 1970, the convening authority approved the sentence, ordered the sentence duly executed, that the record of trial be forwarded to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for review by a Court of Military Review, and the applicant be confined pending completion of the appellate review. 12. The applicant’s military service records are absent a copy of the order documenting the review conducted by the Court of Military Review. However, the applicant’s military service records contain a copy of Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center, Infantry and Fort Lewis, Fort Lewis, Washington, Special Court-Martial Order Number 156, dated 21 July 1971. This document shows, in pertinent part, the applicant's sentence was affirmed pursuant to Article 66. This document also shows that the provisions of Article 71(c) having been complied with and the applicant having served that portion of the sentence pertaining to confinement, the bad conduct discharge was ordered duly executed. 13. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 29 July 1971 and contains the separation authority, narrative reason, separation program number (SPN), and character of service pertaining to the applicant's discharge. This document confirms that the authority for the applicant’s separation was Headquarters, U.S. Army Support Command (Qui Nhon, RVN), Special Court-Martial Order Number 31, dated 12 June 1969 and Army Regulation 635-204. Based on the authority and reason for his separation, the applicant was assigned SPN “292” and a character of service categorized as “under other than honorable conditions.” This document also shows he had 454 days lost under Title 10, United States Code, Section 972 (10 USC 972) from 7 March 1970 through 12 June 1970 and in an excess leave status without pay and allowances from 4 August 1970 through 29 July 1971. This document further shows the applicant completed 2 years net active service this period. The DD Form 214 confirms that the applicant was issued a Bad Conduct Discharge Certificate. 14. The applicant's military service records document no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition. 15. On 8 January 1975, the applicant submitted an application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for upgrade of his discharge. In his application, he indicated “evidence to be submitted at a later date.” On 22 September 1975, the ADRB notified the applicant that a hearing to review his case was scheduled for 21 October 1975; however, there is no indication that the applicant responded to this notice. On 3 December 1975, the ADRB advised the applicant that after careful consideration of his military records and all available evidence, the ADRB determined the applicant was properly discharged and his request for a change in the type and nature of his discharge was denied. 16. In support of his application, the applicant provides the following documents: a. Two self-authored statements, dated 23 January 2008 and 12 March 2008, and Headquarters, 62nd Maintenance Battalion (Direct Support), Comment 2, dated 8 December 1969, subject: Bar to Reenlistment. These documents were previously introduced and considered in this Record of Proceedings. b. Standard Form (SF) 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care), dated 5 May 1969, and photograph labeled “Evidence of Condition.” The SF Form 600 shows that the applicant received treatment on 5 May 1969 and the attending medical official entered, in pertinent part, “hit in head last night 11 PM. No loss of consciousness.” The photograph shows the back of a man’s head and contains, in pertinent part, the handwritten entry “this is the scare (sic) tissue on the back of Mr. Arthur E______’s head, a direct result of enemy bombing in Vietnam, while en route from 226th S&S Co. “1969.” c. A one-page extract from The Overseas Weekly - Europe Edition, May 1970 and Pacific Edition - May 1971, and extract from a publication that contains 2 articles in the Armed Forces section (page 32). The top margin of the first document contains the handwritten entry “[m]y interview for The Overseas Weekly was taken in October 1969, it was not released until November 1969.” The second document contains the following handwritten entry in the top margin, “Jet Magazine, May 1970” and features an article titled “Demand Probe of Bias Against Black GIs in Vietnam” that contains, in pertinent part, the sentences, “Mrs. Cynthia E______ of Brooklyn, mother of Pfc. Arthur Lee E______, 21, said a friend of E_____’s wrote that her son, was being given a ‘raw deal’ in a court-martial. The friend, Pfc. Amos L______, said ‘E______ was sentenced to four months, fined $50 and given a bad conduct discharge’.” d. Headquarters, U.S. Army Personnel Center, Fort Lewis, Washington, Special Orders Number 210, dated 29 July 1971, which show the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions and issued a Bad Conduct Discharge Certificate, effective 29 July 1971. e. Certificate of Achievement, dated 13 May 1997, issued to the applicant by the Angel Guardian Home for distinguished achievement; Certificate of Recognition, dated 7 September 2001, presented to the applicant for Completion of the Life Skills Group; Wall of Tolerance Certificate, dated 15 May 2002, honoring the applicant in leading the way towards a more tolerant and just America; Certificate of Completion, dated 23 March 2006, issued to the applicant for completing Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation training; 2 Security Guard Training Certificates showing the applicant completed 24 hours of Security Guard training from 13 through 15 June 2006; Certificate of Completion, dated 16 June 2006, showing the applicant completed the Fire Guard Preparatory Course; Certificate of Completion, dated 30 March 2007, showing the applicant completed the Job Readiness and Customer Service/Retail Training Course; Office of the President, Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, Proclamation, dated 11 August 2007, and a copy of an article titled Gowanus Houses Old Timers Day, in pertinent part, honoring the applicant for hosting the 32nd Gowanus House Old Timers Day; and 2 pages containing copies of 4 photographs with handwritten captions in the margins identifying the elected officials that the applicant is pictured with in the photographs. f. Department of Veterans Affairs, New York Regional Office, New York, New York, letter, dated 17 October 2007, that provides pertinent information pertaining to the applicant’s military service. g. Letter from Mr. Eric F______, dated 14 December 2007, and Bethel Baptist Church, Brooklyn, New York, letter, dated 2 January 2008. These letters offer personal knowledge and endorsement of the applicant’s personal character and traits, along with his contributions to his community. 17. Title 10 of United States Code, section 1552, as amended, does not permit any redress by this Board of the finality of a court-martial conviction and empowers the Board to only change a discharge if clemency is determined to be appropriate. 18. Army Regulation 635-204 (Personnel Separations - Dishonorable and Bad Conduct Discharge), in effect at the time and in pertinent part, provides that an enlisted person will be discharged with a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial imposing a bad conduct discharge. 19. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Numbers) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPN to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPN of “292” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-204 as a result of court-martial (other than desertion). 20. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. 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 clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual. 21. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory, but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier's separation specifically allows such characterization. 22. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, that the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound sustained while in action against an enemy or as a result of hostile action. Substantiating evidence must be provided to verify that the wound was the result of hostile action, the wound must have required treatment, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant contends, in effect, the charges that resulted in his court-martial should be dismissed and his discharge should be upgraded because of double standards, racial discrimination in his military unit, and the mistreatment he received from his superiors. He also contends that he is entitled to award of the Purple Heart. 2. There is no evidence which shows the applicant was awarded the Purple Heart. There is no medical evidence of record which shows that the applicant was wounded or treated for wounds as a result of hostile action. Moreover, the applicant provides insufficient evidence to support award of the Purple Heart. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence upon which to base award of the Purple Heart. 3. The evidence of record shows that punishment was imposed against the applicant under Article 15, UCMJ, on 5 occasions and, on 4 of those occasions, the applicant did not offer evidence in matters of extenuation, mitigation, or defense indicating the existence of double standards, racial discrimination in his military unit, or mistreatment from his superiors. On 1 occasion, the applicant indicated he submitted matters of extenuation, mitigation, or defense; however, there is no record of this in his military service records. 4. The evidence of record shows that upon recommendation of the imposition of a bar to reenlistment, the applicant submitted a statement expressing allegations of prejudice against him that caused a great deal of misunderstanding, a lack of action by his chain of command in dealing with this prejudice, and resulted in court-martial charges against him. The evidence of record also shows the battalion commander asserted, contrary to the applicant’s statements, counseling and rehabilitation of the applicant was negated because of untruths that he presented that were later proven false. In view of all of the foregoing, the applicant fails to provide sufficient documentary evidence to support his claim of double standards, racial discrimination in his military unit, or mistreatment that he received from his superiors. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to upgrade of his discharge. 5. The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s trials by court-martial were warranted by the gravity of the offenses for which he was charged. In addition, conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the applicant’s rights were protected throughout the court-martial process. In this regard, the applicant provides insufficient evidence in support of his claim that charges should be dismissed because of false testimony and his contention that he did not assault the 2 officers who were in the execution of military police duties. 6. By law, any redress by this Board of the finality of a court-martial conviction is prohibited. The Board is only empowered to change a discharge if clemency is determined to be appropriate to moderate the severity of the sentence imposed. 7. After a thorough and comprehensive review of the applicant’s military service record, it is concluded that based on the seriousness of the offense for which he was convicted, clemency would not be appropriate in this case. 8. The applicant's post-service conduct, accomplishments, and service to the community since his discharge were also carefully considered. The applicant’s good post service conduct and achievements are commendable, but not so meritorious as to warrant an upgrade of his discharge. 9. 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. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X____ _____X___ ___X_ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _ ____X___ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20070018010 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20070018010 14 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1