| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member | |
| Mr. Jose A. Martinez | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his bad conduct discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: He was told if he "went through a course" while in confinement at Fort Leavenworth, he could have his discharge upgraded. He submits no evidence in support of his request.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The Board considered the applicant’s request on 4 December 2001 and, although they voted to deny relief, the Board, by unanimous vote, determined that the applicant’s failure to file within the statutory time limits should be excused. Hence the applicant’s case has been reconstituted to excuse his failure to timely file.
He entered active duty on 7 June 1974 at the age of 18. In 1975 he was punished twice under Article 15 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) for failing to go to his appointed place of duty. In August 1977, in spite of the UCMJ actions, he was advanced to pay grade E-4. In April 1978, following completion of an assignment in Korea, the applicant was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas. In February 1979 he was punished a third time under Article 15 of the UCMJ for failing to go to his appointed place of duty. His February 1979 UCMJ action also included punishment for damaging a military vehicle “through neglect” when he revved “up the engine” and popped the clutch which destroyed “a transfer gear case…of a value over 100.00….”
Performance evaluation reports, contained in the applicant’s records, indicate that he was generally rated as having met or exceed “most duty requirements.” He was a successful graduate of the PLDC (Primary Leadership Development Course) in 1978.
On 14 July 1980, he was convicted by a general court-martial, in consonance with his plea, of possession of 1941 grams (approximately 4 pounds) of marijuana. His sentence included confinement at hard labor for 12 months, forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 2 months, and a bad conduct discharge. The court martial order indicated that two other charges were “dismissed to the terms of the Pre-Trial Agreement.”
The Table of Maximum Punishment, in effect at the time, indicates that the applicant could have received a Dishonorable Discharge, up to 5 years confinement, and total forfeiture, based on possession of 30 or more grams of marijuana.
On 14 February 1981, the Army Court of Military Review affirmed the conviction, and on 15 July 1981 the bad conduct discharge was executed.
Army Regulation 635-200 states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.
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 applicant's separation was executed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. There is no evidence of any error.
2. Additionally, the Board notes that the applicant’s sentence was appropriate considering the fact that he had approximately 4 pounds of marijuana in his possession and appears to have been consistent with his plea bargain. His conduct prior to his court-martial was not so meritorious so as to warrant an upgrade of his discharge based on equity. The applicant has submitted no evidence which would serve as a basis to upgrade his discharge.
3. 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 that requirement.
4. 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
__INW __ __TL____ __JAM __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001061160 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011218 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 142.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070017013
In accordance with Title 10, United States 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. However, there is no evidence that indicates the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. As a result, there is insufficient basis to upgrade the applicant's discharge to an honorable or a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010658
The applicant requests, in effect, that his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. The applicant's entire record of service was considered; however, the fact that the applicant received NJP on three occasions, his record of AWOL, and his drug possession, drug dealing and fraudulent enlistment, which resulted in his trial by court-martial and subsequent confinement and bad conduct discharge, shows the applicant did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007371
This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's 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 applicant was discharged on 9 October 1980 in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 11-2, as a result of court-martial with a character of service of bad...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04580
The Air Force Court of Military Review affirmed the findings and sentence on 10 February 1981. We have considered the applicant's overall quality of service, the general court-martial conviction which precipitated the discharge, and the seriousness of the offense to which convicted, and having found no error or injustice with regard to the actions that occurred while the applicant was a military member, we conclude that no basis exists to grant favorable action on his request. Exhibit B.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010269
He was accordingly discharged from military service on 28 May 1981. The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms that he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 11 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) with a bad conduct discharge as a result of Court-Martial. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013547
The applicant requests that his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to a general under honorable conditions discharge. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's 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. On 21 August 1980, he was separated from the Army with a bad conduct discharge under the provisions of chapter 11 of Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060007426C070205
Laverne Douglas | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Chapter 11 of this regulation, in effect at the time, states that a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial. The applicant’s record of service included, in addition to the special court-martial that resulted in his bad conduct discharge, four nonjudicial punishments, one summary...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005266C070205
Fields | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant's statement that he never sold drugs and he was told that he would receive veteran benefits once he became a civilian is not supported by the evidence of record. Therefore, he is not entitled to correction of his records to show a general discharge or an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011871
He contends that his evidence will show: * he was not a known drug dealer and his chain of command mistook him for another Soldier * he was never reduced in rank on 14 November 1979 * information provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office regarding an Article 15 he received on 17 December 1980 is inaccurate * he did not receive a mental health evaluation as required * there is no record of him having been found in the wrongful possession of 43 grams of marijuana or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070012132C080213
He was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge. On 22 August 1989, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicants request for an upgraded discharge. Considering his first conviction by court-martial, even while acknowledging that it appears his second conviction of 13 February 1979 had not completed the appellate process, the discharge resulting from his third conviction by court-martial appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted.