RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        1 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050003652


      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. James E. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy       |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Carol A. Kornhoff             |     |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 he be granted a Presidential Pardon and
that his discharge be upgraded to honorable based, in effect, on clemency.

2.  The applicant states he was not directly involved in the offense which
took place and had no control over the particular situation.  The actual
facts of the charge were discovered two months after the court-martial.

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the
Armed Forces of the United States); a VA Form 21-4138 (Statement in Support
of Claim); a photograph of himself; what appears to be a copy of a Petition
for Pardon; a letter from the Office of The Judge Advocate General (OTJAG)
dated 29 June 1953 from "Chuck" to "Ed"; a letter from OTJAG dated 26
August 1953; a first endorsement dated 23 July 1952; an Installation
Clearance Certificate dated 5 May 1954; a letter dated 30 July 1953; an
Application Form dated         21 July 1952; and a Notice of Appointment
dated 29 September 1970.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

Counsel states the applicant had been recommended for restoration to duty
and he was restored to duty on 29 January 1954 to complete his term of
enlistment. Prior to his conviction, the applicant had no previous record
of misconduct and had attained the rank of Master Sergeant.  He had served
in three campaigns during a time of war in Korea.  The fact the entire
staff of the detainment facility recommended restoration to duty was itself
testament to the applicant's ability to conform to authority and cooperate
for the better good of the organization to which he was assigned.  His post-
service record indicates he has been gainfully employed, has not been the
subject of difficulty with civil authority or the police since leaving the
military, and has been an asset to his community in many respects.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  After having had prior service, the applicant was ordered to active
duty from the Illinois Army National Guard on 13 November 1951.  He was
promoted to the temporary rank of Master Sergeant (pay grade E-7) on 15
January 1953.

2.  On 2 May 1953, the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial,
contrary to his plea, of wrongfully and unlawfully arranging for unnamed
persons
to engage in sexual intercourse with Korean women in the Battery supply
room.  He was sentenced to be dishonorably discharged (suspended), to
forfeit all pay and allowances, and to be confined at hard labor for one
year.

3.  On 19 June 1953, the Board of Review, United States Army affirmed the
findings of guilty and the sentence.

4.  In a letter dated 29 June 1953 on OTJAG letterhead, "Chuck" wrote "Ed"
that the applicant was convicted of pandering together with a warrant
officer.  The letter stated in part, "The Warrant was the guy who was the
guiding genius in the picture, but there was evidence that (the applicant)
knew what was going on, and some evidence that he was accepting a rake-off
on the proceeds.  …The evidence against (the applicant) is not, in my mind,
too strong, although "Paul" considered it sufficient to show that he had
knowledge of the arrangement and that he was, in fact, getting some dough
from (the warrant officer).

5.  On 26 October 1953, the Commandant of the Disciplinary Barracks,
Lompoc, CA approved a Classification Board recommendation that the
applicant be restored to duty.

6.  On 29 January 1954, the applicant was honorably restored to duty to
complete his term of enlistment.

7.  On 11 May 1954, the applicant was released to the Illinois Army
National Guard with a character of service of general under honorable
conditions.

8.  Around November 2004, the applicant completed a Petition for Pardon
after Completion of Sentence.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 governs the separation of enlisted personnel.
In pertinent part, it states 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.  Where
there have been infractions of discipline, the extent thereof should be
considered, as well as the seriousness of the offense(s).  Conviction by a
general court-martial or by more than one special court-martial does not
automatically rule out the possibility of awarding an honorable discharge.
An honorable discharge may be furnished when disqualifying entries in the
Soldier’s military record are outweighed by subsequent honest and faithful
service over a greater period of time during the current term of service.
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.

10.  The United States Attorney's Manual, Standards for Consideration of
Clemency Petitions, states that, as a general rule, in clemency cases the
correctness of the underlying conviction is assumed and the question of
guilt or innocence is not generally at issue.  In general, a pardon is
granted on the basis of the petitioner's demonstrated good conduct for a
substantial period of time after conviction and service of sentence.  The
following principal factors are taken into account:  (1) post-conviction
conduct, character, and reputation; (2) seriousness and relative recentness
of the offense; (3) acceptance of responsibility, remorse, and atonement;
(4) need for relief; and (5) official recommendations and reports.  Pardon
issues are handled by the Office of the Pardon Attorney, Department of
Justice.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's, and counsel's, contentions have been carefully
considered.

2.  It is acknowledged the applicant had no previous record of misconduct
and had attained the rank of Master Sergeant, (pay grade E-7).  It is
acknowledged he had served in three campaigns during the Korean War and the
Commandant of the Disciplinary Barracks approved a recommendation to
restore him to duty.  He was restored to duty on 29 January 1954 and was
released from active duty, with a character of service of general under
honorable conditions, on 11 May 1954.

3.  However, it is noted the applicant does not entirely disclaim
involvement with the incident for which he was court-martialed, stating
only that he was "not directly involved."  It is also noted a letter dated
29 June 1953, which he provided to the Board, indicated there was evidence
the applicant "knew what was going on, and some evidence that he was
accepting a rake-off on the proceeds."

4.  The applicant's good post-service conduct has been considered.
However, this is insufficiently mitigating to warrant upgrading his
discharge to fully honorable.

5.  The applicant also requested a Presidential Pardon and provided what
appears to be a copy of a Petition for Pardon.  Pardon issues are handled
by the Office of the Pardon Attorney, Department of Justice.  If the
applicant has not already done so, he should send his Petition for Pardon
to:  Office of the Pardon Attorney, 4th Floor, 500 First Street, NW,
Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530-0001.
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jea___  __teo___  __cak___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that 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.




                                  __James E. Anderholm__
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050003652                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051101                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1954/05/11                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 615-365                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |A03.00                                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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