| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Robert J. McGowan | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin | Member | |
| Ms. Paula Mokulis | Member |
2. The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous request to set aside his court-martial conviction or, in the alternative, to upgrade his DD (dishonorable discharge).
3. The applicant states, through counsel, that he and three fellow soldiers were convicted by a general court-martial on 28 March 1948. He was specifically convicted of Article of War 64 (willful disobedience), Article of War 69 (breach of peace), and Article of War 96 (drunk and disorderly in uniform). He was sentenced to 2 years' confinement at hard labor, total forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a DD. He adds that his conviction is more than 50 years old and during the rest of his life, he has been a model citizen. He has worked hard, raised a family, and is now a grandfather of 14 children. He has never been in trouble with the law and provides police reports to prove this claim.
4. The applicant's counsel states that this Board has the authority to set aside court-martial convictions under the old Articles of War (convictions prior to 5 May 1950). Counsel then presents a 12-page argument concerning the adequacy of the applicant's legal representation by a line officer--an Infantry Major--not a legal officer from the Judge Advocate General's Corps.
5. The applicant's military records were lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973. Information herein was obtained from alternate sources. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 March 1946. Trained as an armorer (military occupational specialty 511), he was sent to Germany for assignment to Company I, 18th Infantry Regiment. He arrived in Germany during the month of January 1947.
6. On the evening of 15 February 1948, the 18th Infantry Regiment Officer-of-the-Guard received word that four unit soldiers were in the town of Friedberg harassing civilians. He and two other Lieutenants then went to town in a civilian vehicle to find the four soldiers. The applicant and three other soldiers were located in a beer hall and were escorted outside. They were ordered to get into the civilian vehicle and refused. They then departed the area, but were later apprehended by the Military Police in groups of two. The applicant and another soldier were turned over to the Company I Duty Officer who restricted them to the barracks. Later they were observed at the Snack Bar and were taken to the Regimental Guardhouse where they remained overnight.
7. Court-martial charges were preferred against all four soldiers. The applicant was charged with willful disobedience (Article of War 64), breach of arrest (Article of War 69), and drunk and disorderly in uniform (Article of War 96). The second soldier was charged with willful disobedience, breach of arrest, drunk and disorderly in uniform, and wrongful destruction of Government property (Article of War 96). The third soldier was charged with willful disobedience and breach of arrest, and the fourth soldier was charged with willful disobedience.
8. All four soldiers were tried together by a General Court-Martial. All members of the court, save the Law Member, were officers assigned to the 18th Infantry Regiment, and neither trial counsel nor defense counsel were lawyers. The Law Member was a Judge Advocate General's Corps attorney. The court-martial was held on 25 March 1948 and, contrary to their pleas of not guilty, all four soldiers were found guilty. The applicant was sentenced to a DD, total forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and 2 years' confinement at hard labor (reduced to 1 year). The second soldier was sentenced to a DD, total forfeiture, and 4 years' confinement (reduced to 1 year). The third soldier and fourth soldiers were sentenced DD's, total forfeiture, and confinement for 1 year.
9. The applicant served his sentence to confinement and his DD was executed on 20 December 1948. He served a total of 2 years, 11 months, and 4 days of creditable service and had 300 days of lost time due to confinement. His highest grade held was that of Technician 5th Class (T/5) and, aside from his one court-martial conviction, he had no other nonjudicial or judicial punishments on his record. He returned to his home of record in the State of Illinois and has resided there to date. State and Federal criminal record checks revealed that the applicant has no criminal record.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Trial by court-martial was conducted under the Article of War, then in effect. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the Board finds no indication of procedural errors that would have tended to jeopardize his rights.
2. The Board finds the applicant's punishment overly harsh given the nature of the offenses charged and the applicant's otherwise satisfactory military record. In view of this and his more than 50 years of good post-service conduct, the Board believes that the applicant has suffered the stigma of a DD long enough.
3. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected, but only as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by voiding the DD now held by the individual concerned and by replacing it with a General Discharge under honorable conditions.
2. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.
BOARD VOTE:
__RJW__ ___KWL_ ___PM__ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
__Raymond J. Wagner_
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2001058963 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | 20010608 |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010920 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | DD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19481220 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 615-364 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A76.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | DASA |
| ISSUES 1. | 105.0000 |
| 2. | 110.0000 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00292
After serving his 30-days of confinement, he was informed he was being recommended for an undesirable discharge. He understood if his request for discharge was approved that his separation from the Air Force could be under conditions other than honorable and he could receive an undesirable discharge. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040006627C070208
The applicant’s military records are not available to the Board for review. There is no evidence and the applicant has not provided evidence that shows the FSM's superiors made it hard on him because he was black or documentation that shows white Soldiers refused to take orders from him. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067317C070402
He states that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) can set aside the applicant's conviction because he was convicted under the Articles of War. The sentence was adjudged on 31 March 1945. 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:
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500680
The Applicant requests that his characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: None Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment:...
On 11 September 1952, the Air Force Board of Review set aside the findings of guilty of Charge II and all specifications thereunder and affirmed the sentence as modified to provide for a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and confinement at hard labor for 1 year and 6 months. He was sentenced to a dishonorable discharge and one year and 6 months’ confinement. We therefore conclude that no basis exists to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s request.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019002
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States) to upgrade his character of separation from bad conduct to honorable. Special Court Martial Order Number 3697, issued by the Department of the Army, Officer of the Judge Advocate General, Board of Review, Washington, DC, on 7 September 1951, decided that, with respect to the...
USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00665
The applicant was discharged on 870408 under conditions other than honorable in lieu of trial by court-martial (A and B). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).In considering the applicant’s issues, the Board found a significant discrepancy to exist between the applicant’s statement to the Board and the official record of the events leading to his plea...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080019275
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. In accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the ABCMR is not empowered to set aside a conviction by a court-martial convened under the UCMJ. Conviction and discharge were effected in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087643C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant was released from confinement and returned to duty on 27 April 1946, went AWOL on 20 May 1946 from Camp Atterbury and returned on 6 November 1946. On 31 July 2002 the National Personnel Records Center prepared a Certification of Military Service showing that the applicant was a member of the Regular Army from 10 July 1941 until 3 January 1946 and that he was...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02008-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 December 2008. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 13 April 1962 you were convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of absence from your appointed place of duty and sentenced to hard labor for...