Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606996C070209
Original file (9606996C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that consideration should be given to the fact that he served 5 years of military service; that he served in Vietnam for 2 1/2 years and that he received the Bronze Star Medal and many other awards. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He was born on 20 December 1949.  He completed 10 years of formal education.  On 7 June 1971, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 6 years with 3 years, 1 month and 
4 days of prior active service.  His military occupational specialty was 57A10 (Duty Soldier).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-2.

On 3 June 1971, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failure to repair.  His imposed punishment was 14 days restriction.

On 15 October 1971, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 
15 September to 12 October 1971.  He was sentenced to a forfeiture of $100 pay and a reduction to pay grade E-1.

Between 18 July and 3 November 1972, the applicant accepted four NJP’s, under Article 15, UCMJ, for two specifications of leaving his appointed place of duty without proper authority, for being AWOL from 31 October to 3 November 1972, for disobeying a lawful order and for dereliction of duty.  His punishment included forfeitures, restrictions and extra duties.  

The applicant’s military records also indicates that court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for the possession of heroin.  However, the particulars are missing from his file. 

On 12 January 1973, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of two specifications of assault, for wrongfully communicating a threat and for being AWOL from 
11 to 15 December 1972.  He was sentenced to a forfeiture of $100 pay per month for 4 months, confinement at hard labor for 4 months and to be discharged from the service with a BCD.  On 26 January 1973, the convening authority approved the sentenced and forwarded the record of trial to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for review by a board of review.

On 20 February 1973, the United States Army Court of Military Review, affirmed the findings of guilty and the   sentence.  The applicant’s record does not indicate that he petitioned the United States Court of Military Appeals for a grant of review.  

On 17 April 1973, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, as a result of a court-martial, under other than honorable conditions with a BCD certificate.  He had completed 1 year, 8 months and 4 days of active service during this enlistment.  He was awarded the Bronze Star Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal and the Vietnam Campaign Medal.  

Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, as amended, precludes any action by this Board which would disturb the finality of a court-martial conviction.  

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:

1.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

2.  Trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offense 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.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his allegation or request.

4.  Therefore, 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




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086965C070212

    Original file (2003086965C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Although the records are incomplete and do not show when he served in Vietnam during his second tour or when he was reduced in rank, the available records show that on 11 February 1970, while serving in the rank of corporal in Vietnam, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty. On 18 January 1972, he went AWOL and remained absent until he was returned to military control on 4 March 1972 and charges were preferred against him. Conviction and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607070C070209

    Original file (9607070C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 1 year, a forfeiture of all pay and allowances and to be dishonorably discharged from the Army. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded: 1. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060314C070421

    Original file (2001060314C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 30, 31 August and 2, 3 September 1972, he failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant presented any, to show that the applicant's misconduct was, in any way, related to combat duty.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110012800

    Original file (20110012800.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge (HD), addition of Air Medals to his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), and restoration to the grade of E-5. On 5 July 1973, he requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court-martial. All units in Vietnam were awarded the Republic...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005197

    Original file (20090005197.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 15 May 1973, the applicant’s immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-206 for misconduct, conviction by civil court. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067449C070402

    Original file (2002067449C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to show he was honorably discharged. 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:

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070007613

    Original file (20070007613.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He requests that he be granted an "honorable" discharge. The evidence of record shows the applicant's first period of service was honorable when he completed 1 year of active service before he was discharged for immediate reenlistment, while serving in Germany. The evidence of record failed to establish a basis upon which clemency could be granted and upon which the severity of the punishment imposed could be moderated with an upgrade of the applicant's bad conduct discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007003

    Original file (20100007003.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 25 May 1973 in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service, with service characterized as under other than honorable conditions: a. There is no evidence in the applicant's military personnel records that show he received any awards for valor or heroism. However, there is no evidence the Army Discharge Review Board acted on his request for an upgrade of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072055C070403

    Original file (2002072055C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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: EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100015131

    Original file (20100015131.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His DD Form 214 shows he had completed a total of 6 years, 10 months, and 6 days of creditable service with 388 days of lost time prior to his normal expiration term of service (ETS). The DA Form 20 lists the applicant's periods of lost time as: * 2 - 3 November 1965, 2 days AWOL * 2 - 20 February 1966, 19 day AWOL * 4 April - 17 August 1966, 136 days AWOL * 18 August - 15 December 1966, 120 days in confinement * 25 February 1971 - 29 June 1971, 125 days AWOL [the applicant was assigned to...