MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 18 February 1999 DOCKET NUMBER: AC96-07857 AR1998008832 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. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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: In two separate applications, that his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. APPLICANT STATES: That his court-martial proceedings were unfair because he had already been punished for an AWOL offense which later became a part of his court-martial proceedings. He further states that he was found to be not guilty of the additional court-martial offense of theft. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records were lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973. Information herein was obtained from the record of his trial by court-martial and from reconstructed personnel records. On 27 June 1949, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1. He successfully completed his training as a subsistence storage specialist. He was honorably discharged on 3 September 1952, after he completed 3 years 2 months and 5 days of total active service. He enlisted again on 3 September 1953. The applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial on 4 November 1953, of failure to repair to his appointed place of duty. His sentence consisted of a forfeiture of pay. On 3 December 1953, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of driving 55 to 60 miles per hour in a 35 miles per hour zone while under the influence of alcohol. His sentence consisted of hard labor without confinement and a forfeiture of pay. On 9 December 1953, the applicant was convicted a third time by a summary court-martial of failure to repair. His sentence consisted of hard labor without confinement and a forfeiture of pay. He was convicted by a special court-martial on 1 April 1954, of being AWOL from 18 January 1954 until 27 February 1954. His sentence consisted of confinement at hard labor and a forfeiture of pay. Charges were preferred against the applicant for forcible robbery/larceny of property belonging to another soldier and for being AWOL from 19 July to 23 July 1954. He was referred to trial by a general court-martial. On 19 August 1954, the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial of being AWOL from 19 July 1954 until 23 July 1954. His sentence consisted of a BCD, confinement and a forfeiture of pay. The findings and sentence were approved by the Army Board of Military Review on 15 September 1954. Accordingly, on 18 November 1954, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-364, pursuant to his conviction by a general court-martial. He was issued a BCD Certificate. A review of the available record fails to reveal that the applicant was ever punished for the AWOL offense prior to his being convicted by a general court-martial. 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 actions by the Army in this case were proper, and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant. 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 misconduct for which the applicant was convicted. 3. There is no evidence of record to support the applicant’s contention that he was punished twice for the same AWOL offense. He was convicted by three summary courts-martial, one special court-martial, and one general court-martial. All of his convictions appear to have been for different offenses. 4. The type of discharge that he received is commensurate with his overall record of service and in view of his numerous acts of indiscipline, it does not appear that his BCD was too severe. 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 ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION Loren G. Harrell Director INDEX CASE ID AR1998012413 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 1999/02/18 TYPE OF DISCHARGE BCD DATE OF DISCHARGE 1954/11/18 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR615-364 DISCHARGE REASON GCM BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 110.00 2. 110.02 3. 4. 5. 6.