Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056014C070420
Original file (2001056014C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 24 July 2001
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001056014

         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun Director
Mr. William Blakely Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. John N. Slone Chairperson
Ms. Margaret V. Thompson Member
Mr. William D. Powers Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. 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 correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)


APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was treated unfairly and should not have court-martialed. He states that a hardship discharge would have been the correct method to separate him from the Army. He states that the results of his company commander denying his request to see his family left his kids unattended for 2 days. He further states that he was told that his discharge would be automatically upgraded after 5 or 6 years. Also, he was unaware that his discharge had not been upgraded until he applied for veterans benefits and employment. In support of his application he submits a copy of the record of trial of his special court-martial conviction.

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

On 4 December 1969, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training but failed to report to his first duty station. On 7 April 1970, he was declared absent without leave (AWOL) and he remained in that status until returning to military control on 5 June 1970.

On 28 August 1970, he again departed AWOL and remained away until returning to military control on 30 August 1970, at the Special Processing Detachment, Fort Meade, Maryland, where he was placed in confinement on 31 August 1970.

On 9 September 1970, the applicant was released from confinement and on
21 September 1970, he again departed AWOL. He was returned to military control on 6 October 1970 and was again placed in confinement, where he remained until 30 November 1970.

On 4 December 1970, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of being AWOL from 21 September 1970 to 6 October 1970 and his sentence was a reprimand.

On 14 December 1970, the applicant again departed AWOL and remained away until returning to military control at the Special Processing Detachment, Fort Jackson, South Carolina on 16 December 1970. On 4 January 1971 he again departed AWOL and remained away until 3 February 1971.

On 5 March 1971, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of two specifications of AWOL: 14 to 16 December 1970; and 4 January to 3 February 1971. His sentence was a reduction to private/E-1; forfeiture of $50.00 and
30 days restriction (suspended).


The applicant was again AWOL from 7 to 8 March 1971, for which he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on 3 February 1971. He was AWOL again from 16 to 17 March 1971, and once again accepted NJP for this offense.

The applicant again departed AWOL on 28 March 1971, and remained away until returning to military control at the Personnel Control Facility, Fort Campbell, Kentucky on 2 May 1971, at which time he was placed in confinement. He was released from confinement on 9 June 1971, and again departed AWOL on 8 July 1971. He remained away until being returned to military control at the Personnel Control Facility, Fort Meade, Maryland on 27 January 1972. On
25 February 1972, the applicant again departed AWOL and remained away until returning to military control on 4 July 1972.

On 27 September 1972, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of three specifications of AWOL for the periods: 28 March to 2 May 1971; 8 July 1971 to 27 January 1972; and 25 February to 4 July 1972. He was sentenced to a forfeiture of $165.00 pay per month for 3 months; reduction to private/E-1, confinement at hard labor for 3 months; and a BCD. The convening authority subsequently approved the sentence on 14 December 1972.

On 12 January 1973, the US Army Court of Military Review examined the record of trial and found it to be legally sufficient to support the findings of guilty and the sentence. On 17 March 1973, the unexecuted portion of the sentence in regard to forfeiture of $165.00 pay for 3 months and confinement at hard labor for
3 months was remitted and the portion pertaining to BCD was ordered executed and on 13 April 1973, the applicant was separated accordingly. At the time of his discharge he had completed 1 year, 5 months, and 5 days of creditable active military service and had accrued 695 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

According to the Manual for Courts-Martial, Table of Maximum Punishments, in effect at the time, the maximum punishment the applicant could have received was confinement at hard labor for 6 months, forfeiture of $165.00 pay for
6 months, reduction to the rank of private (E-1), and a BCD.

Title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552 as amended does not permit any redress by the Army Board of Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) of the finality of a court-martial conviction and empowers the ABCMR 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 noted the contentions of the applicant that, in effect, his BCD was unjust, he should have been given a hardship discharge based on his family situation, and he was told that his discharge would automatically be upgraded. However, the Board finds these claims lack merit and are not sufficient to warrant the requested upgrade to his discharge.

2. Trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses charged. His 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.

3. 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.

4. Given the applicant’s extensive AWOL related disciplinary history coupled with his undistinguished overall record of service, the Board finds the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate and it concludes that clemency is not warranted in this case.

5. There is no provision of law that mandates an automatic upgrade of a soldier’s discharge. An upgrade of a soldier’s discharge may be warranted if the Board determines that the discharge was in error or unjust. The Board found no evidence in the file that would satisfy this requirement.

6. 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 this requirement.

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.

BOARD VOTE:

________ ________ ________ GRANT

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JNS__ __ MVT __ __WDP__ DENY APPLICATION



                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records




INDEX

CASE ID AR2001056014
SUFFIX
RECON YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED 2001/07/24
TYPE OF DISCHARGE (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.



Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007253

    Original file (20130007253.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 December 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130007253 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. He went to the RVN and asked again. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the final discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058577C070421

    Original file (2001058577C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. He did not complete his airborne training and received orders transferring him to Fort Lewis, Washington with a report date of 25 April 1971.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010727C080407

    Original file (20070010727C080407.doc) 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 7 May 1973, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The evidence of record does show that he departed AWOL from his unit while still in training without ever attempting to discuss his situation with members of his chain of command.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086965C070212

    Original file (2003086965C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Although the records are incomplete and do not show when he served in Vietnam during his second tour or when he was reduced in rank, the available records show that on 11 February 1970, while serving in the rank of corporal in Vietnam, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty. On 18 January 1972, he went AWOL and remained absent until he was returned to military control on 4 March 1972 and charges were preferred against him. Conviction and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074155C070403

    Original file (2002074155C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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: He was placed in confinement upon his last return to military control and charges were preferred against him for the AWOL offenses on 24 September 1970.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076309C070215

    Original file (2002076309C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    At the time of enlistment, the applicant was 17 years old and had completed 10 years of formal schooling. On 10 April 1972, the applicant, through his counsel, requested that the United States Army Court of Military Review reconsider the sentence and approve no sentence which included a BCD. On 23 May 1972, the applicant petitioned the United States Court of Military Appeals for a grant of review.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021546

    Original file (20130021546.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 17 May 1971, he was convicted by a special court-martial of one specification each of being absent without leave (AWOL) during the following periods: * from on or about 26 October 1970 through on or about 29 November 1970 * from on or about 20 December 1970 through on or about 4 January 1971 * from on or about 13 January 1971 through on or about 17 March 1971 * from on or about 6 April 1971 through on or about 30 April 1971 He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for seventy-five...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1987-02378-2

    Original file (BC-1987-02378-2.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1987-02378 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to general. On 10 May 1972, the applicant was discharged with a bad conduct discharge in the grade of airman basic (E-1) and credited with...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071810C070403

    Original file (2002071810C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a more favorable discharge. The commanding general approved his request on 3 August 1973 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007030

    Original file (20140007030.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). He stated that considering the applicant's Vietnam service and the absence of any civilian offenses, he requested the applicant receives the appropriate discharge. Despite a court-martial conviction and two instances of Article 15 for being AWOL, the applicant went AWOL a third time.