APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his dishonorable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he had three periods of active duty, two of which were completed under honorable conditions. During the two periods of honorable service he received numerous awards and citations.  In support of his request, he has submitted information from the county sheriff to prove that he has violated no laws since his discharge from the service.  He has also provided a copy of his license showing that he has become an Evangelistic minister.  Character references from his mother, a city council member and his pastor as well as recognition of his religious poetry abilities are also included.

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

He initially enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 October 1983 and through a series of immediate reenlistments remained on active duty until his dishonorable discharge pursuant to the sentence of a general court-martial on 18 May 1990.  The highest grade he held was sergeant.

He completed the Primary Leadership Development Course and was awarded the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon, the NCO Development Ribbon, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the Expert Badge with hand grenade bar and the Marksman Badge with M-16 rifle bar.

On 9 January 1989 he accepted punishment under Article 15, UCMJ for making an official statement with intent to deceive.  Punishment included reduction to specialist, forfeiture of $350.00 per month for 2 months and restriction for 45 days.

On 31 July 1989, before a general court-martial, he plead guilty to three specifications of indecent acts with a child under 16 years of age.  He was found guilty and in accordance with a pretrial agreement was sentenced to a dishonorable discharge, 18 months confinement and reduction to E-1.  On 6 November 1989 the Army Court of Military Review affirmed the findings and sentence. The US Court of Military Appeals denied review of the case.

Thereafter, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 3, which provides that a soldier will be given a dishonorable discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general court-martial.  The appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered 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.  Trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offense charged.  Conviction and discharge were accomplished in accordance with applicable law and regulation.

2.  Careful consideration has been given to the applicant’s overall record of service.  Indeed his two previous periods of service were distinguished and without incident; however, the seriousness of the offenses for which he was court-martialed renders upgrading his discharge on the basis of his prior service alone inappropriate.

3.  The applicant’s post service accomplishments and the character references he has submitted have been noted by the Board.  While the Board appreciates his achievements, it believes that his conduct on the other hand is reflective of that expected of a good citizen and does not overcome his reprehensible behavior while a soldier.

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