| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Mark D. Manning | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lestor Echols | Member | |
| Ms. Gail J. Wire | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he believes he is entitled to an upgrade to his discharge due to his having been discriminated against and being the victim of racial profiling by others. He claims that the BCD also causes discrimination against him and is unjust to him personally.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 12 July 1971, he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for 3 years. He completed basic training at Fort Ord, California and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Knox, Kentucky. Upon completion of AIT he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11D (Armor Reconnaissance Specialist) and he was assigned to Germany.
The applicant’s service record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition. However, it does contain an extensive disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and a record of his being tried and convicted by a summary court-martial (SCM) and by a special court-martial (SPCM).
On 16 September 1971, the applicant accepted NJP for failing to go to his appointed place of duty. His punishment for this offense included a forfeiture of $25.00 and 14 days of restriction and extra duty.
On 21 August 1973, the applicant was convicted by a SCM of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 1 to 10 July 1973. His sentence included a forfeiture of $171.00 and a reduction to private/E-2.
On 4 April 1974, the applicant was tried and found guilty by a SPCM of violating Article 82 of the UCMJ by wrongfully possessing 825 grams of marijuana. The resultant sentence included a BCD, forfeiture of $200.00 per month for 6 months, a reduction to private/E-1, and confinement at hard labor for 6 months.
On 5 June 1974, the sentence was approved by the SPCM convening authority and the record of court-martial was forwarded to The Judge Advocate General (TJAG) of the Army for review by a board of review.
On 11 November 1974, the United States Army Court of Military Review found the SPCM findings of guilty and sentence as approved by proper authority in the applicant’s case correct in law and fact. Having determined, on the basis of the entire record, that they should be approved, the United States Army Court of Military Review affirmed the guilty findings and the sentence in the applicant’s case.
This affirmation was documented in SPCM Order Number 145, dated
13 March 1975, issued by Headquarters, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas and in which, the sentence was modified to suspend the unexecuted portion of the confinement sentence and the remaining portion of the sentence, including the BCD, was ordered duly executed.
Accordingly, on 31 March 1975, the applicant was separated with a BCD after completing 3 years, 2 months, and 22 days of creditable active military service and having had accrued a total of 178 of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.
Title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552 as amended does not permit any redress by this Board of the finality of a court-martial conviction and empowers the Board to only change a discharge if clemency is determined to be appropriate.
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 Board notes the contentions of the applicant that, in effect, his discharge was improper and unjust based on his having been discriminated against and being the victim of racial profiling but finds no evidence to support these allegations.
2. The Board takes any allegation of racial bias very seriously and took special note of the applicant’s claim of racial prejudice. However, after a thorough review of the military record and lacking any independent evidence from the applicant, the Board finds no evidentiary basis to support his claims of discrimination and racial profiling.
3. The evidence clearly shows and the Board is satisfied that the applicant was afforded every legal right in connection with the SPCM proceedings against him and that his trial was warranted by the gravity of the offense for which he was charged.
4. The applicant’s SPCM conviction and the resultant BCD were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations in effect at the time. Further, the BCD portion of the sentence was not effected until he had been afforded all legal appeals and the findings and sentence were finally affirmed by a United States Army Court of Military Review.
5. By law, any redress by this Board of the finality of a court-martial conviction is prohibited. The Board is only empowered to change a discharge if clemency is determined to be appropriate to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed.
6. Based on the seriousness of the offense for which the applicant was convicted and considering his undistinguished overall record of service, the Board concludes that the resultant BCD was an appropriate punishment and that clemency is not warranted in this case.
7. 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.
NOTE: During the processing of this case the Board discovered an administrative error that should be corrected by the ARBA Support Team, St Louis upon the return of the applicant’s record. The error as identified in the enclosed documents included an erroneous entry in an Insert Sheet (DA Form 20B) to the applicant’s record that noted a second SPCM conviction, adjudged 26 March 1973, that pertained to another soldier and the filing of the promulgating SPCM Order (SPCM Number 22) in the applicant’s MPRJ. The ARBA Support Team should delete the inappropriate entry and remove the erroneously filed SPCM order and transfer it to the appropriate record.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__MDM__ __ LE __ __GJW__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001051836 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/07/19 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | BCD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1975/03/31 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | SPCM |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013404
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. His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 11 (Dishonorable and BCD), with an under other than...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010651
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. b. Paragraph 11-2 of chapter 11 (Dishonorable and Bad Conduct Discharge), in effect at the time, provided that a Soldier would be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial after completion of the appellate review and after such affirmed sentence had...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005309
This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants 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 23 July 1980, after considering the applicants case, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined the applicants discharge was proper and equitable, and it voted to deny his request for an upgrade of his discharge. However, there...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070002873C071029
The resulting approved sentence was a BCD. Given his undistinguished record of service and the severity of the offenses for which he was convicted, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support clemency in this case. 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 limitations prescribed by law.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040005229C070208
It does reveal a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on four separate occasions, and his conviction by a special court-martial (SPCM). On 1 July 1980, the applicant accepted NJP for failing to obey a lawful general order, two specifications of wrongfully communicating a threat, resisting lawful apprehension and stealing. However, there is no evidence of record or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052763C070420
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: 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: Based on the seriousness of the offenses for which the applicant was convicted, the Board concludes that the resultant DD was an appropriate punishment and even after considering his overall record of service, the Board still concludes that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013686
- IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 May 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140013686 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. His service medical records were not available for review.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004742
On 4 April 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed his discharge but found it proper and equitable. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterized the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted. The evidence of record clearly shows his case was considered by a special court-martial and he was provided with counsel and his case was reviewed through the appellate process.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003732C070205
The applicant requests, in effect, upgrade of his Bad Conduct Discharge. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3-year limit on filing to the ABCMR should commence on the date of final action by the ADRB. In order to justify correction of...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2007-144
CGPC stated that even if the Board waives the statute of limitations, relief should be denied because a “complete review of the applicant’s record does not reveal an error or injustice with regards to his processing for separation.” CGPC stated that the applicant’s bad conduct discharge was part of his sentence upon conviction of several serious offenses and that the Commandant denied clemency upon review and ordered that the BCD be executed. Given that the BCD was part of the applicant’s...