| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Joyce A. Wright | Analyst |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member | |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his bad conduct discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That as a youth, he was unable to understand the entire scope of military life.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
At the age of 17 years, he enlisted on 21 October 1964, as a field communications crewman.
Between May and July 1965, the applicant was punished twice under Article 15,
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failure to obey a lawful order by his class leader, and for dereliction of duty. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and 14 days restriction and extra duty, respectively.
The applicant was barred from reenlistment on 11 February 1966, for the
above offenses.
His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows that he was in confinement from 7 March to 31 March 1966 (25 days).
He was convicted by a special court-martial on 30 March 1966, of being absent from his appointed place of duty on two occasions, of failure to obey a lawful order from his superior commissioned officer, of breaking restriction, of violation of a lawful general regulation, and of larceny of private property. His sentence consisted of a forfeiture of pay, confinement at hard labor for 3 months, and reduction to the pay grade of E-1, with the period of confinement suspended for
3 months. His sentence was approved on 30 March 1966.
He was convicted by a general court-martial on 23 November 1966, of being AWOL from 9 June to 23 September 1966 (107 days), and of larceny of private property. His sentence consisted of a forfeiture of all pay and allowance, and
a bad conduct discharge. His sentence was approved on 31 December 1966.
On 23 February 1967, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for absenting himself from his unit. His punishment consisted of 21 days restriction and extra duty.
On 6 March 1967, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty. His punishment consisted of 7 days restriction and extra duty.
His DA Form 20 also shows that he went AWOL from 14 March to 24 August 1967 (164 days), and was in confinement from 25 August to 18 September 1967 (25 days).
On 10 April 1967, the United States Army Judiciary Board of Review affirmed the findings and sentence as provided by the convening authority.
The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 7 September 1967, and was found qualified for separation.
On 19 September 1967, the applicant was discharged from the Army pursuant to the sentence of a general court-martial and was issued a bad conduct discharge.
He had served 1 year, 9 months, and 7 days of creditable service and had 321 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
Army Regulation 635-204, in effect, at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 1(b) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that an enlisted person would be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial.
The appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentences ordered duty executed.
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 notes the applicant’s contention that as a youth, he was unable to understand the entire scope of military life. The Board notes that he was
17 years of age at the time he committed his first and second offense, 18 years of age at the time he was convicted by his special and general court-martial, and was 19 years of age at the time he committed his last offense. Evidence also shows that he had a total of 321 days of lost time. Therefore, his age is not sufficiently mitigating in this case to warrant relief due to his numerous acts of indiscipline.
2. Trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offense charged.
Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulation.
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 this 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
__wm___ ___rs___ ___cg___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001062152 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020402 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | BCD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19670919 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-204 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 360 | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010675
On 8 November 1967, the convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as provided for a reduction to E-1, confinement at hard labor for 3 years, forfeiture of $25 pay per month for 3 years, and a dishonorable discharge. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015919
On 29 May 1968, the United States Army Board of Review, Office of The Judge Advocate General, reassessed the sentence and approved only so much as provided for a bad conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for 6 months, and forfeiture of $50 pay per month for 6 months. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with a bad conduct discharge on 16 August 1968 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-204 for conviction by a general court-martial. __William...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017545
When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. His contentions that he knew nothing about the exchange, he was wrongfully accused of a crime he did not commit, his proceedings were unfair, his legal representative failed to draw his attention to the provisions or explain the implications to him, and the three individuals who were involved and could have vindicated him of these charges never...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070000976
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with a bad conduct discharge on 24 January 1966 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-204 for conviction by a general court-martial. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. ____Linda Simmons_____ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20070000976 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20070807 TYPE OF DISCHARGE UD DATE OF DISCHARGE 19660124 DISCHARGE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014421
The convening authority approved so much of the sentence as provided for 10 months in confinement, total forfeitures, and a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD). It stated that an enlisted person will be discharged with a dishonorable discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial and would be accomplished only after the completion of the appellate process, and affirmation of the court-martial findings and sentence. In this case, the evidence provides an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015033
Paragraph 1b of this regulation states that an enlisted person will be discharged with a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial imposing a bad conduct discharge. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable or a general discharge. _______ _ _X______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008477
However, a Report of Proceedings of Board of Officers, dated 9 May 1967, states the recommendations of the Board of Officers that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 and issued an undesirable discharge are approved. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001681
On 14 May 1971, the applicant's intermediate commander recommended approval of the applicant's discharge, with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, and remarked that the applicant's sentence to confinement for not less than 25 years warranted his discharge from the Army. Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for misconduct. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007158
On 6 May 1966, the convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as provided for a bad conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement at hard labor for 9 months, and reduction to PV1/E-1; and except for the bad conduct discharge, he ordered the sentence executed and the record of trial be forwarded to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for appellate review. He was discharged from the Army on 28 September 1966. The evidence of record shows he was tried...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00242-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 May 1999. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. A fourth special...