| Mr. Loren G. Harrell | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Ernest M. Willcher | Member | |
| Mr. Robert W. Garrett | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to an honorable or general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that while in Vietnam drugs were rampant and that he made bad choices in his friends who ultimately got him into trouble and he had to pay it. He notes that he has been employed by the United States Virgin Island Department of Justice as a correction officer and firearms instructor since 1979. The applicant states he realizes he made a mistake but that he has paid for it. Included with his application is a statement from the Justice Department confirming the applicant’s employment since 1979.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He entered active duty on 19 August 1969 at the age of 19 with 12 years of formal education. He was assigned to Vietnam as a gunner between April 1970 and March 1971 where he was awarded several personal decorations for service and achievement, including an Army Commendation Medal with “V” device.
Following his tour of duty in Vietnam he was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina and in 1972 pled guilty to possession and selling heroin at his general court-martial. His punishment included a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of pay, reduction to pay grade E-1 and confinement at hard labor for three years. In August 1972 the Secretary of the Army remitted confinement in excess of two years and directed that the dishonorable discharge be changed to a bad conduct discharge.
His discharge was executed on 11 December 1972 and on 15 January 1973 he was granted parole.
During his clemency and parole hearing the applicant indicated that he never used cocaine but did use marijuana while in Vietnam.
The table of maximum punishments notes that an individual convicted of possessing and selling heroin could receive a dishonorable discharge, 30 years confinement, total forfeiture and reduction to E-1.
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. The applicant’s separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable laws and regulations with no evidence of procedural error which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. Trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses charged. The discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted and the Board notes that the applicant already received leniency when his discharge was changed from dishonorable to bad conduct and his sentence reduced.
3. While the Board notes the applicant has been a productive member of society since at least 1979, which is certainly noteworthy, it is not a sufficient basis to warrant a recharacterization of his military service to general or honorable, considering the seriousness of his offense.
4. 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.
5. 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
_JNS___ __EMW__ __RWG__ DENY APPLICATION
Loren G. Harrell
Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9706100C070209
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 | 199705807
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He states that he received awards and decoration, served successfully in combat, and was too close to completing his tour in the Army to receive a bad discharge. The applicant submitted a request for an upgrade of his discharge to the Army Discharge Review Board on 17 September 1974, 10 June 1978, and 15 November 1979, and all were denied.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072445C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. His sentence included a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement at hard labor for 3 years and reduction to pay grade E-1. 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 | CY2009 | 20090005155
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 AUGUST 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090005155 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The findings issued by the Court of Military Appeals are not of record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710244
On 25 July 1972, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 2 March to 25 May 1972 and from 22 to 26 June 1972. On 13 November 1975, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, with a bad conduct discharge pursuant to his court-martial conviction. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710244C070209
PURPOSE: To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021312
The Soldiers who told U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) investigators that they bought drugs from him were already in trouble and were falsely accusing him so their charges would be reduced or dismissed. On 15 September 1980, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080019444
The applicant served in Vietnam from on or about 14 July 1969 to 2 January 1971. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040002536C070208
The applicant’s disciplinary history includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice UCMJ) on two separate occasions. On 13 June 1972, the applicant was separated with a BCD. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year statute of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026271
The appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. The conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations and his discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted. His statement from the medical specialist is acknowledged; however, this document is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief in this case.