RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        10 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050004162


      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. Judy L. Blanchard             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Margaret K. Patterson         |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |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, in effect, that her late husband the Former
Service Member’s (FSM) discharge be upgraded to a general discharge under
honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that as far as she can tell her late
husband the FSM only committed one offense while he was in service and that
offense has caused a horrible stigma to be placed on his family.  What he
did was wrong but he has passed on and it is time for his family to move on
with their lives.  She states in effect, that when he was in service she
did not know him when the alleged incident occurred.  Many times, he would
talk about how much he wished he could change what had happened, but that
was impossible.   He was very young and did not think of the repercussions
of his action.  The applicant believes that her late husband should have
been given a general discharge rather than an undesirable discharge.  She
states that her husband was a good man and her family would greatly be
relieved if this could be done.  She further states that she was told that
her late husband was not offered any type of rehabilitative training or
counseling.  She states that the Bad Conduct Discharge BCD that the FSM
received was suspended for 6 months and that the suspended portion was
remitted without further action.  She is just requesting reconsideration on
the type of discharge that he received.

3.  The applicant provides a License and Certificate of Marriage, a Medical
Examiner’s Certificate of Death and three letters of support in support of
her application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or
injustice, which occurred on 16 May 1975, the date the FSM was separated
from active duty.  The application submitted in this case is dated 21 March
2005.

2.  The FSM’s record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered
active duty on 26 October 1973, for a period of 3 years; he was 18 years
old at the time of his enlistment.   The FSM was trained in, awarded and
served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 63B10 (Wheel Vehicle
Mechanic).  The highest grade he attained was pay grade E-3.

3.  On 28 January 1974, the FSM accepted nonjudicial punishment for being
absent without leave from 21 to 25 January 1975.  His imposed punishment
was a forfeiture of $60.00 pay, 10 days restriction and extra duty.
4.  On 13 February 1975, the FSM was convicted by a Special Court-Martial
of stealing by means of force and violence and against the will of another
person a black purse containing 820 Deutsch Marks (Germany Currency); a
$20.00 bill (U.S. Currency) and a camera of a total value of about $537.00.
 The FSM was sentenced to a reduction to pay grade E-1, confinement at hard
labor for
6 months, a forfeiture of $229.00 pay per month for 6 months and to be
discharged with a BCD.  On 28 February 1975, the FSM’s sentence was amended
and only so much of the sentence was approved, confinement at hard labor
for 3 months, a forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 3 months and the
reduction to the lowest enlisted grade was duly executed, but the execution
of that portion thereof adjudging a BCD was suspended for 6 months, at
which time, unless sooner vacated.

5.  On 1 April 1975, while undergoing retraining at Fort Riley Kansas, the
FSM consulted with legal counsel and requested a discharge under the
provisions of 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service.  The FSM did
not submit a statement in his behalf.

6.  On 3 April 1975, the company commander after careful review of the
FSM’s military record and in conjunction with the FSM’s negative attitude
determined that in the best interest of the U.S. Army, that he would
approve the FSM’s request for discharge with an undesirable discharge.

7.  On 4 April 1975, the FSM received a separation physical examination and
was found fit for retention.

8.  On 10 April 1975, the separation authority approved the discharge and
directed that he be discharged with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
On
16 May 1975, the FSM was discharged accordingly.  The separation document
(DD Form 214) he was issued confirms he completed 1 year, 4 months and
5 days of creditable active military service and 76 days of time lost.

9.  On 15 September 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined
that the FSM’s discharge was proper and equitable and voted to deny the
applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides,
in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses
for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at
any time after the charges have been preferred submit a request for
discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A
discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered
appropriate.  However, at the time of the applicant's separation the
regulation provided for the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge
Certificate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The contentions of the applicant were carefully considered and found to
have insufficient merit in this case.

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the discharge was proper and in
accordance with the regulation in effect at the time.  The FSM’s record
shows that he was convicted by a SPCM for stealing another individual’s
property and for that misconduct he received a BCD, which was suspended,
and he was later reassigned for retraining at Fort Riley Kansas.  The FSM
voluntarily requested discharge under the provision of Army Regulation 635-
200, chapter 10, rather than wait for a motion by the Court of Military
Review on his BCD.  The request was approved and he was discharged under
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 with an undesirable
discharge.

3.  Therefore after a thorough and comprehensive review of the FSM’s
military service record, it is concluded that based on the seriousness of
the offenses for which he was convicted, clemency would not be appropriate
in this case.

4.  The evidence of record confirms that all requirements of law and
regulation were met and that the rights of the FSM were fully protected
throughout the separation process.  Further, his discharge accurately
reflects his overall record of service.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily
appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to
submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__MKP__  __LDS __  __MJF___  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.






                                      _Margaret K. Patterson_
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050004162                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051110                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)          |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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