| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Mark D. Manning | Member | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his bad conduct discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that all of his charges were drug related. He contends that he was court-martialed the same month he was supposed to be discharged. He also contends that he never came up positive for drugs, never got caught with drugs and that it was all hearsay. He further states that his lawyer informed him that three people made statements against him, that he was “good as guilty”, so he made a plea bargain to drop some of the charges.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted on 7 May 1992 for a period of 3 years. He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and was transferred to Fort Hood, Texas, for duty as a power generation equipment repairer.
On 27 September 1993, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being drunk on duty. His punishment consisted of a reduction to
E-2, a forfeiture of pay (suspended) and extra duty.
On 1 August 1994, the applicant was promoted to specialist. On 27 January 1995, he was awarded the Army Achievement Medal.
On 30 March 1995, the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial of using marijuana, distributing lysergic acid dietylamide (LSD) on two separate occasions and obstructing justice. He was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, reduction to E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and confinement for 2 years. On 20 June 1995, the convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as provides for reduction to E-1, confinement for 24 months, forfeiture of all pay and a bad conduct discharge. But the execution of that part of the sentence extending to confinement in excess of 18 months was suspended for 2 years.
The applicant’s records show that he was confined at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, from 30 March 1995 through 14 December 1995. He was paroled on 15 December 1995, returned to military control on 5 September 1996 and placed into confinement at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
The applicant’s appellate review was completed on 26 March 1997.
The applicant was discharged pursuant to his general court-martial conviction on 4 April 1997 and issued a bad conduct discharge. He had served 2 years,
10 months and 23 days of total active service and had 38 days lost time due to confinement. The applicant was retained in service for 697 days for the convenience of the Government (confinement from 7 May 1995 through
14 December 1995; parole from 15 December 1995 through 4 September 1996; and confinement from 5 September 1996 through 4 April 1997).
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.
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 Board considered the applicant’s contentions that his charges were all drug related, that he never came up positive for drugs, never got caught with drugs and that it was all hearsay. However, evidence of record shows that the applicant pled guilty at a general court-martial to using marijuana, distributing LSD on two separate occasions and obstructing justice.
2. The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included one nonjudicial punishment, one general court-martial conviction and 735 days lost and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge.
3. The Board also determined that the seriousness of the drug offenses and the obstruction of justice charge for which the applicant received a general court-martial conviction are too serious to warrant relief in the form of a general discharge.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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
SAC____ MDM____ RKS____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001061387 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011213 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (BCD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19970404 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 Chapter 3-11 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | As a result of court-martial |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0200 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00690
The investigation was not about his off-duty marijuana use, but his LSD use at a party. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error or injustice. The applicant’s counsel cites a case previously decided by this Board and two cases previously decided by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) asserting, in essence, that similar clemency consideration should be applied to the applicant’s case and the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070004685
On 23 January 1998, the separation authority disapproved the applicant's request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Conrad V. Meyer _____________________ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20070004685 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20070821 TYPE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052233C070420
The applicant requests, in effect, that his leave be restored to him for the period 16 February 1993 through 30 September 1998 and that he be allowed special leave accrual. According to military pay and leave records, the applicant took 132 days of leave between 19 December 1997, and his retirement date, 30 September 1998. Exception is required to grant leave accrual in excess of 60 days in the applicant’s case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074109C070403
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. Beyond his self authored statement, he submits no evidence in support of his request. Additionally, his dishonorable discharge was ultimately upgraded, by the Army Clemency and Parole Board to a bad conduct discharge effective, 9 September 1997, and finally affirmed.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120016637
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). He believes his discharge is inequitable because it was based on a single isolated incident that occurred after 17 years of honorable service. Sentence: 7 years.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070001665
The applicant requests, in effect, that his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to honorable. He was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for 1 year, and reduction to private, pay grade E1. General Court-Martial Order Number 188, Headquarters, United States Army Armor Center and Fort Knox, Fort Knox, Kentucky, dated 7 November 1997, provided that the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals by opinion of the Court, dated 10 January 1997, set aside the findings of guilty of...
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006562
In accordance with Title 10, U.S. 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. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted. Each case is individually reviewed and a determination is made based on its merits when an applicant requests an upgrade of...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02617
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02617 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. The applicant, then an airman (E-2), was tried before a general court- martial at Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington, on 17 June 1997. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000046
The applicant requests that his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general discharge and that his separation date be corrected. 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. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with the applicable law and regulation and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted.