| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Mr. Terry L. Placek | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to upgrade his dishonorable discharge to general, under honorable conditions. He states that his discharge was improper, unjust and inequitable because:
The trial counsel didn’t prove any element of the charges for which he was accused. The alleged victim admitted that she was not threatened, punched, kicked, bit or anything else that would constitute force, which is clearly an element, needed to prove rape.
She said that the sex was not consensual because she had been suffering from herpes symptoms and had not engaged in sex in at least 2 weeks. The sheets for the night in question were sent to the lab and tested. Semen was found in several areas of the sheets, but none of the semen matched him. The presence of the semen shows she was sexually active, even though she testified that sex was too painful and that she had sex with multiple partners.
During the discovery phase of the trial, a document was uncovered which showed the alleged victim named another soldier as her “boyfriend”. Since both were married, this was a cover-up to preclude adultery charges against both of them.
The applicant requested correction of his records by completing a Department of Defense (DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States). This application was accepted in lieu of DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552).
PURPOSE: To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 30 October 1990, he enlisted in the Army. He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 31K (Combat Signaler). He was advanced to pay grade E-3 effective 1 October 1991.
On 26 July 1993, while serving in Alaska, he was convicted by a general court-martial (GCM) of rape on or about 10 February 1993. His sentence consisted of a reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 8 years and to be dishonorably discharged.
On 14 July 1994, the Court of Military Review affirmed the findings of guilty and sentence.
On 4 November 1994, while confined at the Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, General Court-Martial Order Number 312 directed the dishonorable discharge be executed.
On 12 December 1994, Order 167-07 directed his dishonorable discharge effective 16 December 1994.
On 16 December 1994, he was dishonorably discharged, in pay grade E-1, under Army Regulation 635-200, based on the result of court-martial. His separation document indicates he had 2 years, 8 months and 18 days of creditable service and 1 year, 4 months and 29 days of lost time.
Army Regulation 15-180 provides for petitioning the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), using DD Form 293, for upgrade of the characterization for discharge. Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1553 (a) and the regulation specifies that the ADRB may not consider an appeal for an upgrade of a discharge by sentence of a GCM.
The statutory authority under which this Board was created (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. Rather it 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. Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed.
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. Failure to file within 3 years may be excused by a correction board if it finds it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
DISCUSSION: The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered on 16 December 1994, the date he was dishonorably discharged. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 16 December 1997.
The application is dated 6 August 2001 and the applicant has not explained or otherwise satisfactorily demonstrated by competent evidence that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to apply within the time allotted.
DETERMINATION: The subject application was not submitted within the time required. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested or to excuse the failure to file within the time prescribed by law. Prior to reaching this determination the Board looked at the applicant's entire file. It was only after all aspects of the case had been considered and it had been concluded that there was no basis to recommend a correction of his record that the Board considered the statute of limitations. Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it would have recommended relief in spite of the applicant's failure to submit the application within the three-year time limit.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
_tlp_______ _rwa____ __lls___ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2001061369 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020108 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084294C070212
The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 October 1994 for 3 years. Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1552(f) states that, with respect to records of courts-martial tried or reviewed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Board's action may extend only to action on the sentence of a court-martial for purposes of clemency. The Board notes that the applicant was never sentenced to 8 years confinement.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012876
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. Army Regulation 635-200 governs the separation of enlisted personnel. The conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03700
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03700 INDEX CODE: 105.01, 106.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 7 Jun 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 1994 dishonorable discharge be upgraded to general. The applicant and his family underwent family counseling for marital difficulties and behavioral problems with the stepmother...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003724
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Chapter 10 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. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
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 | CY1997 | 199709385
• The applicant denies that he sexually abused or assaulted his daughter; • There is no direct, probative or corroborating evidence that he sexually abused his daughter; • Applicant’s daughter never testified under oath regarding the allegations; • Applicant’s plea of guilty was made expressly for the purpose of his wife and daughter not having to testify at a civilian criminal trial; • The applicant’s quality of service and performance of duty attest to his good character; and • The board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021888
She adds she was assigned to work for a lieutenant who was a racist. 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. The applicant contends that her bad conduct discharge should be upgraded because she was entrapped, which led to the charges for her trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199709385C070209
Counsel states that the applicant contends that his discharge was materially and legally in error, and unjust, in that: The applicant denies that he sexually abused or assaulted his daughter; There is no direct, probative or corroborating evidence that he sexually abused his daughter; Applicants daughter never testified under oath regarding the allegations; Applicants plea of guilty was made expressly for the purpose of his wife and daughter not having to testify at a civilian criminal...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014865
The applicant was discharged from the Army on 7 February 1997. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged in accordance with chapter 3 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel) as a result of court-martial with a dishonorable discharge. The conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062207C070421
The applicant’s counsel appealed his case to the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals contending that the evidence of record was not legally or factually sufficient to support a finding of rape, that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the applicant was not mistaken as to the alleged victim’s lack of consent, the military judge committed prejudicial error when he denied a defense motion to produce a witness whose testimony would have challenged the...