| Mr. Loren G. Harrell | Director | |
| Ms. Gale Thomas | Analyst |
| Mr. James E. Vick | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas N. Kuhn | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to show he was honorably discharged for the convenience of the government.
APPLICANT STATES: That under the documented circumstances, the penalty imposed was and is excessively harsh.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 21 November 1984, he reenlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for a period of 6 years. He was advanced to pay grades E-2, E-3, E-4, and E-5, on 9 March 1981, 9 May 1981, 1 January 1982, and 19 May 1983, respectively.
On 29 September and 10 November 1988, the applicant’s commander preferred court-martial charges against him for assaulting persons then known by him to be persons having and in the execution of their military police duties, by pointing at them a dangerous weapon, to wit: a loaded .45 caliber revolver.
On 14 December 1988, the applicant was tried by a general court-martial at Hanau, Federal Republic of Germany, and found guilty on two charges of aggravated assault with a dangerous weapon, in violation of Article 128, Uniformed Code of Military Justice. He was sentenced to 6 months confinement, total forfeitures, reduction to pay grade E-1, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD).
On 23 March 1989, a Mental Status Evaluation and a Physical Examination, cleared the applicant for separation.
On 5 May 1989, the applicant was placed on excess leave pending the results of the appellate review of his court-martial.
On 20 July 1989, the United States Army Court of Military Review, affirmed the findings and the sentence of the applicant’s court-martial.
There is not evidence in the available records that the applicant ever petitioned the US Court of Military Appeals for a review of his case.
On 16 October 1989, General Court-Martial Order 823, directed the execution of the BDC, with that part of the sentence extending to confinement having been served.
On 24 October 1989, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 3, section IV, with a BCD. His Report of Separation indicates he had 4 years , 6 months and 12 days of active service, and 142 days of lost time due to confinement.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 3, section IV, provides that a soldier will be given a BCD pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general court-martial or SPCM empowered to adjudicate a BCD. The appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered and 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. 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.
2. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.
3. There is no evidence to substantiate the applicant’s claim that his punishment was excessively harsh. 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.
4. 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
__JEV___ __LLS___ ___TNK__ DENY APPLICATION
Loren G. Harrell
Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705469C070209
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707775
On 5 April 1995, the applicant was discharged, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 4, completion of required active service, in pay grade E-3 with a reentry code of Re-3. Even when the U.S. Court of Military Review reduced the charge to wrongfully carrying a concealed weapon, it still affirmed a sentence that included a reduction to pay grade E-1. Even though the applicant was restored to duty and he concluded his service honorably, a reentry code of RE-3 is proper for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707775C070209
On 5 April 1995, the applicant was discharged, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 4, completion of required active service, in pay grade E-3 with a reentry code of Re-3. Even when the U.S. Court of Military Review reduced the charge to wrongfully carrying a concealed weapon, it still affirmed a sentence that included a reduction to pay grade E-1. Even though the applicant was restored to duty and he concluded his service honorably, a reentry code of RE-3 is proper for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710596
: The applicant’s military records show:He was born on 22 March 1963. He completed 13 years of formal education. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 May 1988.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710596C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his conviction be overturned and he be granted a new trial. He submits as supporting documentation excerpts from the Article 32 hearing and the trial, the defense counsels motion for relief, and official statements concerning an assault on him by relatives of one of the victims. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084875C070212
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 29 April 1976, the applicant was at an on-post club with a friend and fellow Soldier. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711693
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 3 September 1991, the applicant was discharged, with a bad conduct discharge, pursuant to his court-martial sentence. On 28 March 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705305
Ms.Joann H. LangstonChairpersonMr.George D. PaxsonMemberMr.James M. AlwardMember Also present, without vote, were:Mr.Loren G. HarrellDirectorMr.Jospeh A. AdrianceAnalyst The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:On 28 March 1986 the applicant extended his period of service for 29 months while at Fort Eustis, Virginia. However, the evidence of record does...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068240C070402
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014659
He was convicted of the wrong crime as it relates to the assault, although he admits to being guilty of conspiracy to assault. Personnel acting as Military Police are one of these special categories by virtue of the fact that it is their job to enforce the law. The applicant contends that drugs and or alcohol were factors in the offenses; however, the record contains no documentation to support that the applicant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time he committed the acts.