| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Member | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his discharge should be upgraded. In support of his application, he submits a character reference letter, dated 8 July 2001, from his pastor.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant entered active duty on 22 July 1975, served as a cannon crewman in Germany and was honorably discharged on 30 March 1978 for immediate reenlistment. He reenlisted on 31 March 1978 and again on 21 January 1980.
On 7 February 1984 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being derelict in the performance of his duties. His punishment consisted of a reduction to pay grade E-4.
On 5 May 1986 the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial of conspiracy and theft of Noncommissioned Officer Club funds ($3350). He was sentenced to be reduced to pay grade E-1, to forfeit all pay and allowances, to be confined for 14 months and to be discharged from the service with a bad conduct discharge. The convening authority approved the sentence on 6 June 1986; however, confinement in excess of one year and one day was suspended for one year.
On 24 July 1986 the Army Court of Military Review affirmed the sentence.
On 4 December 1986 the Army Clemency and Parole Board approved parole for the applicant effective 30 December 1986.
The applicant’s appellate review was completed on 31 March 1987.
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged pursuant to the sentence of a general court-martial on 30 April 1987. He was issued a Bad Conduct Discharge Certificate. He had served 10 years, 10 months and 13 days of total active service with 361 days lost due to confinement.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, 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. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.
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 reviewed the applicant’s record of service and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge.
2. The Board noted that the applicant had served 10 years, 10 months and
13 days of total active service at the time of his discharge. However, the Board determined that the seriousness of the conspiracy and larceny offenses for which the applicant received a general court-martial conviction are too serious to warrant relief in the form of a general discharge as well.
3. The Board also considered the character reference letter provided on behalf of the applicant. However, good post-service conduct alone is not a basis for upgrading a discharge.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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
MKP____ KAK_____ RTD_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058711 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011002 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (BCD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19870430 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 Paragraph 3-11 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | As a result of court-martial |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0200 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010645
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 January 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070010645 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge to a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) the applicant was issued shows...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070018596
The applicant requests that his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to a general under honorable conditions discharge. The applicant contended that the charges of larceny and conspiracy should never have been filed because that was a matter between him and U. S. Air and was not service connected. Counsel stated that the applicant cannot receive DVA benefits for his service-connected injuries because of his bad conduct discharge.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01467
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01467 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 14 November 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His characterization of discharge be upgraded from dishonorable to honorable and he receive pay, in the grade of E-4, that he was improperly denied while serving in...
On 18 December 1987, the general court-martial approving authority approved only so much of the adjudged sentence which provided for a bad conduct discharge, 14 months of confinement, reduction to airman basic, and forfeiture of $438 per month for 14 months. On 23 February 1988, the Air Force Court of Military Review found the approved findings of guilty and the sentence to be correct in law and fact and, on the basis of the entire record, affirmed the 2 AFBCMR 96-02123 same. On 29...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03098031C070212
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 1 May 1967 the sentence was affirmed and the bad conduct discharge ordered to be executed. The record of trial by general court-martial is not available to the Board; however, absent evidence to the contrary the applicant's conviction for larceny and conspiracy to commit larceny, his sentence to confinement, and his bad conduct discharge are correct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002585
The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge. 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 applicant's available military records and documentation submitted with his application contain no matters upon which clemency in the form of an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge to an honorable or general discharge may be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085565C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 11 July 2001, the applicant was discharged, with a bad conduct discharge, pursuant to his conviction by court-martial. 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 | 20090006562
In accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records is not empowered to set aside a conviction. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted. Each case is individually reviewed and a determination is made based on its merits when an applicant requests an upgrade of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082519C070215
The record of trial was forwarded to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for review by a Court of Military Review. On 16 June 1986, the United States Court of Military Appeals denied the applicant's petition for grant of review. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was adjudged guilty by court-martial and that the convening authority approved the sentence.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007323
The applicant requests an appearance before the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to plead for an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-11, as a result of court-martial, and he was given a bad conduct character of service. The applicant was given a bad conduct discharge...