APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his records be corrected to show his Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) was upgraded to an unspecified characterization.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was too young and immature for marriage; that he took on responsibilities that he was not ready for; that he and his wife disagreed on a lot of things, because they didn’t know each other; that he let his domestic problems get in the way of becoming a good soldier; and, that he now has a much more mature mind in dealing with his personal problems.

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

On 20 September 1988, he enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 88M (Motor Transport Operator).  After being denied advancement to pay grade E-3 on one occasion, he was advanced effective 1 December 1989.

On 24 July 1990, he was convicted by a General Court-Martial of (1) assault on a female soldier, his wife, on 26 February 1990; (2) assault, with intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, on a female soldier, his wife on 6 May 1990; (3) assault, with a means likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm, on a female soldier, his wife, on     6 May 1990; (4) wrongfully communicating a threat to kill a female soldier, his wife, on 6 May 1990; and, (5) for wrongfully and unlawfully making a false statement, under oath, on 7 May 1990.  His sentence included a reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 42 months, and a BCD.

During the period 24 July 1990-20 September 1991, he was confined at Fort Riley, Kansas.

On 23 September 1991, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, with a BCD, under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 3, based on the result of a court-martial.  His Report of Separation indicates he had 1 year, 9 months and 28 days of creditable service and 426 days of lost time.  He was entitled to award of the Army Service Ribbon.

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 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.

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 applicant’s military service.

3.  The statutory authority under which this Board was created (Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, as amended) precludes any action by this Board which would disturb the finality of a court-martial conviction.

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:

                       GRANT          

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director