| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Joyce A. Hall | Analyst |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Member | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was very young and was easily influenced by the older guys in the platoon. He was told that his BCD could be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant was born on 9 July 1962. He enlisted in the Regular Army on
29 January 1980, for 3 years. He was assigned to Company D, 15th Battalion,
4th Training Brigade, United States Army Armor Center, Fort Knox, Kentucky for basic combat training. He completed the required training and was awarded Military Occupational Specialty 11C10 (Infantryman). The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-1.
On 24 March 1980, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, for the good of the service.
On 25 March 1971, the separation authority did not approve the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service.
On 29 April 1980, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of two specifications of willfully disobeying a lawful order, for extortion, for two specifications of intent to commit larceny, for concealment of a felony, for receiving stolen property and for breaking house arrest. His was sentenced to a forfeiture of $299.00 pay per month for 6 months, confinement at hard labor
for 2 months and to be discharged from the service with a BCD.
On 3 June 1980, the convening authority approved the sentenced and forwarded
the record of trial to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for review by a
Court of Military Review. The applicant was confined in the United States
Disciplinary Barrack, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, pending completion of the
appellate review.
On 22 July 1980, the United States Army Court of Military Review, affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence. The applicant’s record does not indicate that he petitioned the United States Court of Military Appeals for a grant of review.
On 30 October 1980, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, as a result of a court-martial, with a BCD. He completed 6 months and 3 days of active military service.
Title 10, United States 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. Trail 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.
3. The contention of the applicant that he was young has been noted. However, the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence that he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age that successfully completed their military service obligation.
4. The Board also considered the applicant’s allegation that his BCD could be or would be upgraded. An upgrade is not automatic and there is no evidence which shows that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade with the 15 year statute of limitations.
5. Trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses charged. The 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.
6. The applicant has failed to provide any basis for the Board to grant clemency in his case.
7. Therefore, 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 | AR2001060515 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011002 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | BCD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19801030 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, Chapter 11 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A68.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.6800 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014067
The applicant states, in effect, that he went to Korea at a very young age and completed 4 years of service. The applicant has provided no evidence to show that his discharge was unjust at the time of his offenses. His post service conduct is not sufficient as a basis to upgrade his bad conduct discharge, particularly in view of his misconduct and offenses.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068608C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Effective 22 December 1983, the applicant was discharged in the pay grade of E-1 under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 3, as a result of trial 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 | CY2001 | 2001066039C070421
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions. On 8 September 1982, the convening authority approved the sentence adjudged and the applicant’s record of trial was forwarded to the United States Court of Military Review. 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 | CY2003 | 2003088578C070403
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 Board considered the following evidence: The Board determined that since the applicant is requesting clemency based on his post-service conduct, it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to timely file and consider the case on its merits.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100735C070208
The applicant was found guilty and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 3 months, forfeiture of $279.00 pay per month for 3 months, reduction to private/E-1, and a BCD. The Board is only empowered to change the severity of the sentence imposed in the court-martial process, and then only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. 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 | CY2006 | 20060015655
The applicant requests that his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded. The punishment included a forfeiture of $104.00 pay, and 10 days of restriction and extra duty. On 11 December 1981, the Army separated the applicant with a bad conduct discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076388C070215
On 6 July 1981, the United States Court of Military Appeals denied the applicant’s request for a grant of review. 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: However, the Board thoroughly reviewed the applicant’s overall record of service, noting that his misconduct involved far more than simple AWOL.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000441
The available records show the applicant was 18 years of age at the time of his enlistment and 20 years and 6 months old at the time of discharge. There is no evidence that indicates he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. His conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and his discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002216
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 October 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130002216 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge (BCD) to an honorable discharge. The applicant completed about 14 months of active duty before he was tried and convicted at a general court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057242C070420
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The record of trial was forwarded to the United States Army Court of Military Review for appellate review. No pay records were available for review.