Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709336
Original file (9709336.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reinstatement of pay for two years of involuntary excess leave.
APPLICANT STATES : That his court-martial was overturned. He was never retried. The two years is considered good time on his DD Form 214, so he should be compensated with back pay.

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

He was born on 24 October 1965. He completed 12 years of formal education. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 November 1987 for 4 years. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13B (Cannon Crewman).

On 5 November 1992, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of wrongful use of cocaine. He was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, to be reduced to pay grade E-1 and to forfeit $523 pay for 3 months.

On 5 November 1992, the applicant was notified by the general court-martial convening authority (GCMA) of his intent to place the applicant on involuntary excess leave. The applicant elected not to submit matters for the GCMA’s consideration in deciding whether or not to retain him on active duty pending the appellate review process.

On 23 December 1992, the applicant was placed on involuntary excess leave.

On 15 July 1994, the U.S. Army Court of Military Review set aside the findings of guilty and the sentence.

The local Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) informed the GCMA that he, the GCMA, was requested to terminate the applicant’s excess leave and could order a rehearing or dismiss the charges. The SJA recommended that another special court-martial be reconvened.

On or about 15 August 1994, the applicant returned to active duty.

On 18 August 1994, court-martial charges were again preferred against the applicant.

On 20 January 1995, the applicant, after consulting with legal counsel, who advised him to accept the court-martial, voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. He submitted a statement in his own behalf, wherein he requested the command consider giving him a general discharge.

On 24 January 1995, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

The applicant was discharged on 8 May 1995, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial. He had completed 7 years, 4 months and 15 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.

Army Regulation 600-8-10 prescribes the policies for the leave and pass function of the Military Personnel System. The regulation defines excess leave as leave in excess of accrued or advanced leave. The soldier is not entitled to pay and allowances for a period of such leave. In pertinent paragraph, it states that the GCMA may direct this leave if a soldier is sentenced by court-martial to a punitive discharge. The GCMA will cause the soldier to be notified in writing of the intent to consider him or her for involuntary excess leave. Soldiers are given a reasonable time in which to present matters supporting a request to continue on duty, if desired.

The Department of Defense Military Pay and Allowances Entitlements Manual also states that members on excess leave are not entitled to pay and allowances.

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.

On 3 April 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded the applicant’s discharge to a general under honorable conditions discharge.

 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. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2. The applicant was absent from duty while he was in excess leave. While it was involuntary, he had the opportunity to request to remain on active duty and chose not to request to do so.

3. 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




 Loren G. Harrell
                                                      Director

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709336C070209

    Original file (9709336C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reinstatement of pay for two years of involuntary excess leave. On 3 April 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded the applicant’s discharge to a general under honorable conditions discharge. 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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014423

    Original file (20080014423.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He also states, in effect, that he still does not have a discharge document with his characterization of service or a true DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for a benefit determination. After a thorough review of the available records, there was no cause for clemency and an insufficient basis upon which to base an upgrade of the applicant’s bad conduct discharge to an honorable or general discharge. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005924

    Original file (20130005924.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    A Unit/Installation Clearance Record shows the applicant was confined from 25 September 1998 through 14 December 1998 by direction of a court-martial. On 6 February 2006, HRC issued an Official Statement of Service showing: * dates of active duty - 20 January 1994 through 19 January 2000 * character of service - uncharacterized * a reenlistment eligibility code - 9 * reason for discharge - in lieu of trial by court-martial * assignment to Company B, 2nd Battalion, 1st Aviation Regiment 16. ...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110005933

    Original file (20110005933.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    BOARD DATE: 3 November 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110005933 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 3 January 2008, charges were preferred against the applicant for: * committing sodomy with a child under the age of 12 between 1 May and 12 November 2005 * on divers occasions between 1 May and 12 November 2005, committing an indecent act on a female under the age of 16 * desertion from 16 September 2007 to 3 January 2008 4. Article 71(c) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050017438C070206

    Original file (20050017438C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests to present his case before a formal panel of the Board. The applicant states his command did not take into consideration his nearly eight years of honorable service. Pursuant to Article 66(b), UCMJ, the record of trial was referred to the United States Army Court of Military Review (ACMR).

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070015333

    Original file (20070015333.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant states that the presumption of regularity that might normally permit the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to assume that the Army acted correctly in characterizing his service as less than honorable does not apply in his case because of the evidence he is submitting. This form further shows the applicant's character of service as bad conduct and that he completed 4...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074857C070403

    Original file (2002074857C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He’s proud to say he served the United States Army. 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 | 20090005975

    Original file (20090005975.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. On 30 October 1995, the convening authority approved the sentence as provided for reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 11 months and a bad conduct discharge. On 16 April 1996, the United...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014943

    Original file (20080014943.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Dix, New Jersey, General Court-Martial Orders Number 50, dated 15 August 1995, show that the sentence to a bad conduct discharge, adjudged on 24 August 1993, has been finally affirmed and that the bad conduct discharge would be executed. The evidence of record shows the applicant was a senior noncommissioned officer and had completed nearly 15 years of service at the time of his misconduct. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068122C070402

    Original file (2002068122C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 9 November 1995, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denied the petition for a grant of review. Orders 121-00214, Headquarters, U. S. Army Armor Center and Fort Knox dated 30 April 1996 reassigned the applicant to the U. S. Army Transition Point with a discharge date of 14 May 1996. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was not discharged upon his release from confinement but was placed on excess leave pending appellate review.