Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059026C070421
Original file (2001059026C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 26 July 2001
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001059026

         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
Mrs. Nancy Amos Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. Chairperson
Mr. Hubert O. Fry Member
Mr. Eric N. Anderson 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: That his discharge be upgraded and his conviction be dismissed.

APPLICANT STATES: That he has been drug and alcohol free for over 5 years and has had no further troubles with the law. He is an active member of the Healing Waters Ministry. He feels he deserves an overturning of his discharge because he has not been a further problem for the legal system and has been a good influence on many. He regrets the actions that led to his discharge. He provides no supporting evidence.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 September 1993. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63S (Heavy Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).

On 26 March 1996, the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial of one specification of negligently damaging military property of a value more than $100.00; one specification of willfully damaging military property of a value less than $100.00; one specification of wrongfully appropriating military property of a value of more than $100.00; and one specification of unlawful entry. He was sentenced to forfeit all pay and allowances, to be reduced to pay grade E-1, to be confined for 6 months, and to be discharged with a bad conduct discharge.

On 26 August 1996, the applicant was placed on involuntary excess leave.

On 23 May 1997, the U. S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence.

On 6 November 1998, the applicant was discharged with a bad conduct discharge pursuant to his sentence by court-martial. He had completed 4 years, 8 months, and 20 days of creditable active service and had 153 days of lost time (confinement).

Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552, as amended, precludes any action by this Board which would disturb the finality of a court-martial conviction.

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 this requirement.
2. The Board is cognizant of the applicant’s prior lack of disciplinary action and his statement that his post-service conduct has been good. However, 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. It would not be equitable to consider upgrading his discharge so soon after his discharge and the Board does not have the authority to overturn or dismiss a court-martial conviction.

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

__rvo___ __hof___ __ena___ DENY APPLICATION



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




INDEX

CASE ID AR2001059026
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED 20010726
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION (DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 105.01
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012697

    Original file (20100012697.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 23 November 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100012697 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. 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. At the time of his offenses the applicant was 29 years of age.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004856

    Original file (20090004856.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 16 December 1992, the convening authority approved the sentence and except for the bad conduct discharge, he ordered it executed. The Deputy SJA also stated that the decision to title the applicant for his role in the larceny offenses for which he was later court-martialed appears proper and that no action would be taken to amend the applicant's records and that if new and relevant information was available, the request to amend the ROI could be resubmitted. Accordingly, the CID titling...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000812C070208

    Original file (20040000812C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. On 23 December 1986, the applicant was discharged in absentia under the provisions of chapter 3, Army Regulation 635-200, with a BCD as a result of his conviction by a special court-martial. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501346

    Original file (MD0501346.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD05-01346 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050809. Finding : Guilty Charge V: violation of UCMJ, Article 121: (3 specifications)Specification 1: Did, on or about 16 August 1996, steal a 1996 Dodge Neon, of a value in excess of $100.00, the property of Lance Corporal C_ M. M_, U.S. Marine Corps. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency.

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-01100

    Original file (MD01-01100.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USMCR(J) 921113 - 930616 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 930617 Date of Discharge: 980225 Length of Service (years, months, days): Active: 04 07 08 Inactive: None Age at Entry: 18 Years Contracted: 4...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016469

    Original file (20090016469.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    e. Additional Charge II, Article 134, Plea: Not Guilty. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. The evidence of record does show the applicant was convicted by a GCM and he received a BCD.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003234

    Original file (20130003234.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 November 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130003234 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 2 May 2003, the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals corrected General Court-Martial Order Number 2, Department of the Army, U.S. Army Military District of Washington, Washington, D.C. 20319, dated 1 March 2002 by: a. inserting in line one of Specification 1 of Charge II after the date "1 May 2000" the words and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079827C070215

    Original file (2002079827C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 31 January 1994, the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) office at Fort Greely was notified by an investigator at the Alaska Department of Labor that the applicant had illegally received unemployment checks intended for her husband in the amount of $2,160.00. On 12 September 1996, the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denied the applicant's petition...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071670C070402

    Original file (2002071670C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008587

    Original file (20100008587.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Although the applicant contends it did not take 1 year and 8 months after he was incarcerated to be discharged as reflected in section III of his ADRB proceedings, the evidence of record shows he was convicted by a special court-martial on 26 September 1994 and his appellate process was not completed until 24 January 1996. He was discharged on...