RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        13 SEPTEMBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040010458


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Gale J. Thomas                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Shirley Powell                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Robert Duecaster              |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette McCants              |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that his records be corrected by upgrading his
discharge.

2.  The applicant states that at the time he was 20 years old and was young
and immature, but has had no record or incident of bad conduct since his
discharge.

3.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 May 1984, for a period
of
3 years.  At the time of his enlistment he was 19 years old.

2.  Between December 1984 and June 1985, the applicant accepted five
nonjudicial punishments under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of
Military Justice for failure to go to his appointed place of duty,
disobeying lawful orders from senior noncommissioned officers and superior
commissioned officers, breaking restriction, being disrespectful in
language towards a senior noncommissioned officer and for threatening to
injure a senior noncommissioned officer.  His punishments included
reduction, restriction, extra duty and forfeitures of pay.

3.  In June 1985, the applicant’s commander preferred court-martial charges
against him for being disrespectful in language towards a superior
commissioned officer, disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned
officer, destroying an automobile windshield, and assault consummated by a
battery by unlawfully striking another Soldier on the head with a crutch.
In July the applicant’s commander preferred additional charges against the
applicant including failure to repair, breaking restriction, and two
specifications of failure to obey a lawful order.

4.  On 25 June 1985, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service, in
lieu of court-martial.  However, his unit and senior commander’s
recommended disapproval of his discharge request, and on 1 July 1985, the
Commanding General disapproved his discharge request.




5.  On 2 August 1985, the applicant was convicted by a special court-
martial of being disrespectful in language towards a superior commissioned
officer, disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer,
destroying an automobile windshield, assault consummated by a battery by
unlawfully striking another Soldier on the head with a crutch, breaking
restriction, making a false statement under oath, failure to repair, two
specifications of disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned
officer, and one additional specification of breaking restriction.  He was
sentenced to a forfeiture of pay for 5 months, to be confined for 5 months
and to be discharged from the service with a bad conduct discharge.

6.  Special Court-Martial Order Number 120, Headquarters, US Army Armor
Center and Fort Knox, Fort Knox, Kentucky, dated 27 August 1985, approved
the court-martial sentence, but the execution of that part of the sentence
adjudging confinement in excess of 90 days was suspended for 6 months
providing he not violate any of the punitive articles of the Uniform Code
of Military Justice; at which time, unless the suspension was sooner
vacated, the suspended part of the sentence would be remitted without
further action.

7.  The findings and sentence were affirmed by the United States Army Court
of Military Review on 7 October 1985.

8.  Special Court-Martial Order Number 42, Headquarters, US Army Armor
Center and Fort Knox, Fort Knox, Kentucky, dated 24 February 1986, directed
the execution of the bad conduct discharge, noting that the portion of the
sentence pertaining to confinement had been served.

9.  On 28 March 1986, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 3, paragraph 3-10, as a result of court-
martial, with a bad conduct discharge.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty) indicates he had 1 year, 7 months
and 29 days of active service, and 89 days of lost time.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, which currently establishes the policies and
provisions for the separation of enlisted soldiers, states that an
honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable
characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’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.

11.  Title 10 United States Code, section 1552, the statutory authority
under which this Board operates, notes, in pertinent part, that with
respect to records of courts-martial action to correct a military record
may extend only to action on the sentence of a court-martial for purposes
of clemency.

12.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to
upgrade his discharge.  On 30 September 1987, the ADRB reviewed and denied
the applicant’s request for upgrade.  The ADRB determined that the
applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's separation was accomplished in compliance with
applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would
tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the
reasons therefore were appropriate considering the facts of the case.

2.  The applicant’s contention that he was young and immature is without
merit.  He was 19 years old at the time of his enlistment, and was 21 years
of age at the time of the offenses for which he was court-martialed.

3.  The applicant’s contention that he has had good post service conduct,
in that he has no record or incident of bad conduct, is insufficient to
warrant upgrading his discharge.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___SP __  ___RD __  __JM____  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.




                                  ______Shirley Powell_________
                                            CHAIRPERSON
-----------------------
[pic]