RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        6 October 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050003468


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Curtis L. Greenway            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. LaVerne V. Berry              |     |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 bad conduct discharge be upgraded to a
general discharge under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states he has not exhibited the type of behavior for
which he received his bad conduct discharge.  He has shown he can be a
productive and law-abiding citizen.  He was falsely convicted of the crimes
for which he was separated and sentenced to 18 months at Fort Leavenworth.
He now knows that using drugs and alcohol helped to destroy his military
career.  He is seeking a discharge due to clemency.

3.  The applicant provides three letters (one dated 6 August 2004, one
dated      23 August 2004, and one undated) of support.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests the Board review all evidence in the applicant's case
along with all mitigating and extenuating circumstances coupled with the
impetuosity of his youth and upgrade his discharge to a general under
honorable conditions discharge through clemency.

2.  Counsel states the applicant contends his life has changed, he has a
great job and is a very productive citizen.  The applicant provides letters
from long-time friends, workers, and family to support his case.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was born on 28 September 1958.  He enlisted in the
Regular Army on 31 July 1979.  He completed basic training and advanced
individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63B
(Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).

2.  On 21 August 1980, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for falsely altering his mid-
month Government check.  His punishment was a forfeiture of $100.00,
restriction for  14 days and extra duty for 14 days.

3.  On 13 February 1981, the applicant was convicted by a special court-
martial, contrary to his pleas, of eight specifications of failing to go to
his appointed place of duty and one specification of larceny (stealing a
tape recorder of some value from another Soldier).  He was sentenced to be
reduced to the grade of Private, E-1, to forfeit $334.00 pay per month for
6 months, to be confined at hard labor for 6 months, and to be discharged
with a bad conduct discharge.

4.  On 31 July 1981, the U. S. Army Court of Military Review affirmed the
findings of guilty and the sentence.

5.  On 1 December 1981, the applicant was discharged, with a bad conduct
discharge, pursuant to his conviction by court-martial.  He had completed 1
year, 11 months, and 1 day of creditable active service with 151 days of
lost time (confinement).

6.  The applicant provided three letters of support.  One letter was from
an acquaintance who has known the applicant for the past seven years,
through a mutual friend, for her automobile repairs.  She states the
applicant is efficient, effective, and eager to learn.  A second letter is
from an employee with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency who
certified the applicant successfully completed over 40 hours of volunteer
work for various watershed cleanup activities along the Anacostia and
Potomac rivers.  A third letter is from a friend who has known the
applicant for 15 years and attests the applicant is a responsible person
and someone who can be trusted.

7.  Army Regulation 635-200 governs the separation of enlisted personnel.
In pertinent part, it states a general discharge is a separation from the
Army under honorable conditions.  It is issued to a Soldier whose military
record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an
honorable discharge.

8.  Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1552(f) states that, with respect to
records of courts-martial tried or reviewed under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice, the Board's action may extend only to action on the
sentence of a court-martial for purposes of clemency.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  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.

2.  The applicant's contention he was falsely convicted of the crime for
which he was separated relates to evidentiary matters which were finally
and conclusively adjudicated in the court-martial appellate process and
furnishes no basis for recharacterization of the discharge.

3.  The applicant's entire record of service and his post-service conduct,
as attested to in the supporting letters, were considered in this case.
However, it is noted the applicant had received non-judicial punishment for
a similar offense prior to his conviction by court-martial.  He was 22
years old at the time he was convicted by court-martial.  It is determined
his post-service conduct is not sufficiently meritorious or mitigating to
warrant clemency in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__clg___  __rtd___  __lvb___  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.




                                  __Curtis L. Greenway__
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050003468                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051006                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |BCD                                     |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19811201                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |105.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]