| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the narrative reason for his discharge be changed.
APPLICANT STATES: That the court dismissed all charges against him. It is unjust that he was separated because someone disliked him. He provides a certificate of completion dated 12 August 2000 for completing Anger Management Training and a Motion to Dismiss dated 22 September 2000 as supporting evidence.
COUNSEL CONTENDS: Counsel makes no additional statement.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 January 1998. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 19K (Armor Crewman).
The court-martial charges and the discharge proceedings packet are not available.
On 17 July 2000, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge under other than honorable conditions. He had completed 2 years, 5 months, and 13 days of creditable active service and had 7 days of lost time.
On 22 September 2000, the County Court of Bell County, TX dismissed unspecified charges against the applicant. The Motion to Dismiss notes that although all of the elements of the offense were present and the State was ready to proceed to trial, the Motion to Dismiss was made pursuant to a plea agreement with applicant because restitution was made by the applicant and because the complaining witness requested that he not be prosecuted for the offense.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
On 14 November 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.
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 and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.
2. The Board cannot determine if the charges that were dismissed by the civil court on 22 September 2000 were the same as the charges for which the applicant received his discharge in lieu of court-martial. Nevertheless, when the applicant requested his administrative discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial he included an admission of guilt. The Board also notes that the State was ready to proceed to trial on his civilian charges and only dismissed the charges pursuant to a plea agreement with the applicant.
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
__aao___ __mhm___ __kah___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001060323 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020129 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 20000717 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A70.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003247C070205
When the court-martial reconvened a discussion ensued and eventually the judge denied defense’s motion to dismiss charges based on the violation of the applicant’s speedy- trial rights. The judge denied the defense counsel’s request to enter a conditional plea. After hearing testimony from the applicant and closing arguments from counsel, she sentenced the applicant to be reduced to the pay grade of E-1 and to be discharged with a BCD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060006050C070205
In his request the applicant stated he understood he could request discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial because charges had been filed against him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which could authorize the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. The applicant stated that he understood that if his request were accepted, he could be discharged under conditions other than honorable. In this agreement, he entered a plea of guilty to the charge and its...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01026
Sufficient evidence supports the Discharge Authority's conclusion applicant consented to pretrial diversion in exchange for a dismissal. ARPC/JA's complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant's counsel reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states the applicant contends he did not agree or sign a pretrial diversion agreement nor did he appear before a judge to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120019102
Despite believing the case did not warrant anything more serious than a GOMOR, and despite having seen no evidence, the company commander was directed to prefer court-martial charges against the applicant. The company commander recommended a trial by general court-martial. In support of this contention, the applicant provides a memorandum from the former company commander wherein he states he viewed the SJA's actions as unlawful command influence.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00847
In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement, with documents from his military personnel records; copies of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) responses from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), dated 22 Aug 02, and 11th Wing, dated 10 Dec 02, and a letter to his member of congress, dated 12 Mar 04. A military judge may only accept a service member’s plea of guilty if it is provident under military law. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02937
In fact, the applicant’s commander at the time of his trial was married to an enlisted member. A majority of the Board believes that the long-term impact of the applicant’s dismissal from the Air Force is disproportionate to the offenses he was convicted of. The majority of the Board voted to grant the applicant’s request for a clemency upgrade of his dismissal to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010853
The applicant requests that his general discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Separations), be upgraded to honorable. 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. The discharge authority approved the applicant's request and directed the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012370
In the alternative, he requests that this Board upgrade his dishonorable discharge to an honorable discharge, as an act of clemency. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was convicted pursuant to his guilty pleas by a general court-martial adjudged on 13 November 2001. The applicant's available military records and documentation submitted with his application and his records contain no matters upon which the Board may grant clemency and an upgrade of his dishonorable discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062254C070421
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of his military records by revocation of Orders 311-00200, dated 6 November 2000, dropping him from the rolls of the Army effective 3 November 2000; by revocation of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) dated 3 November 2000; and by referral of his case to the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB). On 25 October 2000, the TRADOC commander at Fort Monroe advised the commander of the Total Army Personnel Command...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100028919
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 June 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100028919 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's records contains a record of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, dated 3 November 2000, for conspiring to steal and stealing property valued at $250.00 from the Fort Sill Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) Shoppette for which he received a reduction to specialist (SPC)/E-4 and a forfeiture of $796 pay for...