APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he has lived with the stigma of his BCD for 39 years and would like to have it removed.  He has had no law violations other than a speeding ticket over these many years.  He is now 68 years old, has retired as a correctional officer and would like to have his discharge changed.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 19 February 1951 and received a BCD on 19 June 1953 pursuant to the sentence of a general court-martial.  He previously received an honorable discharge from the US Air Force on 21 December 1949 after 1 year, 5 months and 2 days of service.

Following his enlistment in the Army, he was trained as a military police investigator and assigned to Japan.  There, on 13 May 1953, he was found guilty by a general court-martial of two specifications of violation of Article 121, UCMJ (larceny), one specification of violation of Article 127, UCMJ (extortion) and one specification of violation of Article 92, UCMJ (violation of a general regulation).

He pleaded guilty to all charges and specifications and was found guilty of the same.  He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 1 year, to forfeit all pay and allowances and to be discharged with a BCD.  There is no evidence of any previous court-martial convictions in his records.

His case was reviewed by the US Army Board of Review which upheld the conviction and sentence.  He did not petition the US Court of Military Appeals for a grant of review of his case.  On 18 December 1953, after approximately 7 months of confinement, he was released on parole.

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.  Trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses charged.  Conviction and discharge were accomplished in accordance with applicable law and regulations.

2.  Careful consideration has been given to the applicant’s previous Air Force service, as well as his Army service prior to his court-martial conviction.  The offenses in question, however, are too serious, and his service too undistinguished, for relief to be appropriate for that reason alone.

3.  In order to justify changing the applicant’s BCD to a more favorable discharge, he must show to the satisfaction of the Board that the record is incorrect or unjust and warrants changing.  In this case, he has submitted neither probative evidence nor a persuasive argument in support of his request.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there appears to be 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