APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his dishonorable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That he had three periods of active duty, two of which were completed under honorable conditions. During the two periods of honorable service he received numerous awards and citations. In support of his request, he has submitted information from the county sheriff to prove that he has violated no laws since his discharge from the service. He has also provided a copy of his license showing that he has become an Evangelistic minister. Character references from his mother, a city council member and his pastor as well as recognition of his religious poetry abilities are also included.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He initially enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 October 1983 and through a series of immediate reenlistments remained on active duty until his dishonorable discharge pursuant to the sentence of a general court-martial on 18 May 1990. The highest grade he held was sergeant.
He completed the Primary Leadership Development Course and was awarded the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon, the NCO Development Ribbon, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the Expert Badge with hand grenade bar and the Marksman Badge with M-16 rifle bar.
On 9 January 1989 he accepted punishment under Article 15, UCMJ for making an official statement with intent to deceive. Punishment included reduction to specialist, forfeiture of $350.00 per month for 2 months and restriction for 45 days.
On 31 July 1989, before a general court-martial, he plead guilty to three specifications of indecent acts with a child under 16 years of age. He was found guilty and in accordance with a pretrial agreement was sentenced to a dishonorable discharge, 18 months confinement and reduction to E-1. On 6 November 1989 the Army Court of Military Review affirmed the findings and sentence. The US Court of Military Appeals denied review of the case.
Thereafter, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 3, which provides that a soldier will be given a dishonorable discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general court-martial. The appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed.
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:
1. Trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offense charged. Conviction and discharge were accomplished in accordance with applicable law and regulation.
2. Careful consideration has been given to the applicants overall record of service. Indeed his two previous periods of service were distinguished and without incident; however, the seriousness of the offenses for which he was court-martialed renders upgrading his discharge on the basis of his prior service alone inappropriate.
3. The applicants post service accomplishments and the character references he has submitted have been noted by the Board. While the Board appreciates his achievements, it believes that his conduct on the other hand is reflective of that expected of a good citizen and does not overcome his reprehensible behavior while a soldier.
4 In view of the foregoing, there appears to be no basis for granting the applicants 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
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020921
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his records to show he was honorably retired instead of being dishonorably discharged by a court-martial. On 19 July 1990 on remand by the U.S. Court of Military Appeals, the U.S. Court of Military Review reconsidered the case and opined that the staff judge advocate's advice to the convening authority was correct and sufficient and that the applicant was not prejudiced by the lack of extensive discussion of the meritless issue he asserted in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000069
BOARD DATE: 23 July 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130000069 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Headquarters, 9th Infantry Division, Fort Lewis, WA, General Court-Martial Order Number 17, dated 18 July 1990, shows that after completion of all required post-trial and appellate reviews the convening authority ordered the applicant's dishonorable discharge sentence executed. The conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and the discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005678
Headquarters, U.S. Army Correctional Facility, Fort Riley, KS, General Court-Martial Order Number 283, dated 10 March 1989, shows that, after completion of all required post-trial and appellate reviews, the convening authority ordered the applicant's dishonorable discharge sentence executed. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 5 May 1989. The conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and the discharge appropriately characterizes the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140004295
Headquarters, U.S. Army Correctional Brigade, Fort Riley, KS, General Court-Martial Order Number 475, dated 15 August 1990, shows that after completion of all required post-trial and appellate reviews the convening authority ordered the applicant's dishonorable discharge sentence executed. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 5 September 1990. The conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and the discharge appropriately characterizes...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050010433
The applicant requests, in effect, that his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded. On 29 April 1987, the United States Army Court of Military Review, after a review of the entire record in the applicant’s case, held that the findings of guilty and the sentence as approved by the convening authority were correct in law and fact. It also shows that at the time of his separation, he had completed a total of 12 years and 3 months of active military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091652C070212
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 31 January 1984, the United States Army Court of Military Review upon consideration of the entire record of the special court-martial, including consideration of the issues specified by the appellant, held that the findings of guilty and the sentence as approved by the convening authority were correct in law and fact. There is no evidence of record that indicates the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020733
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 July 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130020733 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and the discharge appropriately characterized the misconduct for which he was convicted. Based on his overall record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080003382
His records do not show any significant acts of valor during his military service. On 29 August 1996, the convening authority approved the applicant's sentence and ordered it executed, except for that part of the sentence extending to a dishonorable discharge, and the record of trial was forwarded to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for review by the Army Court of Military Review. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 3, Army Regulation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013828C071029
Dale E. DeBruler | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. A thorough and comprehensive review of the applicant’s military service record shows that while his service was generally good, there is no evidence of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110023635
The applicant requests his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. After a review of the applicant's record of service, it is clear his service did not meet the criteria for an honorable or a general discharge, or any other characterization of service other than the one he received. _______ _ X_______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.