| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded to fully honorable. He also apparently requests copies of his pay account.
APPLICANT STATES: That he has lived a good life since his discharge. He would like to receive an honorable discharge for the time he served honorably. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 December 1982 for 3 years. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13B (Cannon Crewmember). He accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on 17 July 1984 for violating a lawful general order by having five six-packs of beer. The Article 15 indicates there is a continuation sheet but it is not available. He was honorably discharged on 6 November 1985 for the purpose of immediately reenlisting on 7 November 1985 for 3 years.
On 22 June 1988, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of assault by striking another soldier on the head with a means likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm, to wit: a pool cue. He was sentenced to forfeit $447.00 pay for one month, to be reduced to pay grade E-1, to be confined for one month, and to be discharged with a bad conduct discharge.
On 20 July 1988, the applicant was placed in an excess leave status pending appellate review of his sentence. He was informed that excess leave would be without pay and allowances.
On 29 March 1989, the U. S. Army Court of Military Review noted that during sentencing the Government offered a record of nonjudicial punishment for an infraction of a regulation: possession of five six-packs of beer. The paperwork indicated that additional offenses were listed on an “attached sheet” but the attached sheet was missing. The military judge ruled that even if the defense wanted to object to it, he would overrule the objection, thereby preserving the possibility of somebody, on appeal, invalidating that exhibit. The Court agreed that admission of the incomplete record was in error. The Court considered the other errors asserted, including the error personally raised by the applicant, and found them to be without merit. The findings of guilty were affirmed. The Court reassessed the sentence on the basis of the error noted and the entire record and affirmed the sentence.
On 20 October 1989, the applicant was discharged with a bad conduct discharge pursuant to his conviction by a special court-martial.
On 8 June 1995, the Army Discharge Review Board concluded that the applicant’s length and quality of service warranted clemency and voted to grant a general discharge under honorable conditions. Item 18 of his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214, shows he had continuous honorable active service from 2 December 1982 – 6 November 1985.
Army Regulation 635-5 effective 1 October 1979 ended the need to prepare a Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214, for enlisted members who are discharged for immediate reenlistment.
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. Trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offense 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 ADRB exercised its discretion when it upgraded the applicant’s bad conduct discharge to a general discharge under honorable conditions based upon clemency and his length and quality of service. Notwithstanding the applicant’s contention that he has lived a good life since his discharge, considering the gravity of the offense charged the Board concludes that further upgrade is not warranted.
4. The applicant’s DD Form 214 already reflects the fact his first period of service was honorable.
5. As for requesting copies of his pay account, the applicant should contact the Director, Defense Finance and Accounting Service – Indianapolis Center, ATTN: DFAS-IN-FJA, 8899 East 56th Street, Indianapolis, IN 46249-2301. If after receiving the information he requests he determines that there was a problem with his pay, he should submit an application to the Board clearly outlining the problem and his expected resolution, with all necessary supporting evidence (such as copies of his pay account), and the Board will consider his application.
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
__fne___ __tbr___ __dph___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001063926 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020305 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 105.01 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000897
The applicant did not provide additional evidence. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Additionally, there is no evidence indicating he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007424
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant also states that COL (Ret) C____u ordered a United States Army Criminal Investigation Command (USACIDC, also known as CID) investigation of his appeal in the 1983/1984 time period. A DD Form 149, dated 30 April 1984, shows the applicant requested consideration by the ABCMR for correction of all military records to reflect that all findings of guilty to the charges and specifications set forth in Department of the Army,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070008992
Stone Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time of his discharge confirms he was discharged with a Bad Conduct Discharge as a result of Court-Martial, in accordance with chapter 3 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separation). William D. Powers ______________________ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20070008992 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20071211 TYPE OF DISCHARGE (BCD) DATE OF...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067733C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The specifics are not present in the available records; however, his records do show that he was reduced to the pay grade of E-4 on that date. On 28 June 1985, the United States Army Court of Military Review affirmed the findings and sentence as approved by the court-martial convening authority.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086025C070212
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The applicant was discharged with a bad conduct discharge on 23 August 1984 in the rank and pay grade, Private, E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 3, section IV, as a result of court-martial. After reviewing the applicant service record, the Board found no basis upon which to grant clemency and an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006947
The orders show the general court-martial convening authority approved the sentence and directed that, except for the bad conduct discharge, the sentence be executed. The records of the FBI are under the jurisdiction of that agency and the Board does not have the authority to direct that they correct those records. While the applicant is correct that the findings of the drug charges should also include the final disposition of the charges on the FBI RAP sheet, the Board does not have the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062412C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 25 February 1955, he was dishonorably discharged pursuant to the sentence of a general court-martial. He asserted that it was never proven that the camera he was accused of stealing was the property of the other soldier and that if the record of trial was reviewed, it would show that he was right.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061848C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 20 August 1998, the Army Discharge Review Board unanimously voted to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge. The Board also notes that the applicant’s counsel has proven that the applicant fraudulently enlisted, an offense that in and of itself could result in an under other than honorable conditions discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 199607965C070209
His approved sentence was reduction to paygrade E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 4 months, and a BCD. 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. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his allegation or request.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080000775
On 6 February 1982, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for at least two specifications of failing to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with a bad conduct discharge on 22 May 1984 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 3, as a result of a court-martial. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes...