| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock | Analyst |
| Mr. George D. Paxson | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas A. Pagan | Member | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his dishonorable discharge be upgraded to general or honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he served the Army with pride during his career, but made a stupid mistake because of financial difficulties caused by monthly child support payments for two children. His military record shows that he was a very good soldier.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant entered on active duty on 9 March 1976 and remained on continuous active duty until his discharge. The applicant attained the rank of sergeant first class. His evaluation reports, other than the last report that he received for the period September 1996 through June 1997, have been excellent and oftentimes outstanding throughout his military career. His NCO evaluation report ending in June 1997 shows that he admitted to a federal criminal incident and that he went AWOL. He completed numerous military courses, including the Advanced NCO Course (ANCOC). The applicant’s medals include three awards of the Army Commendation Medal, two awards of the Army Achievement Medal, and five awards of the Army Good Conduct Medal.
A 17 October 1997 General Court-Martial Order published by Headquarters, U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, shows that the applicant was arraigned at Aberdeen and pled guilty to six counts of larceny, four counts of forgery, eight counts of obtaining services under false pretenses, and AWOL. The applicant was sentenced to be reduced to the grade of E-1, to be confined for 36 months, and to be dishonorably discharged from the Army.
A 25 September 1998 General Court-Martial Order published by Headquarters, U.S. Army Armor Training Center and Fort Knox, Fort Knox, Kentucky, remitted five months of the unexecuted portion of the applicant’s sentence to confinement.
Following appellate review of the case, a 28 July 1999 General Court-Martial Order published by the United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, directed that the dishonorable discharge be executed. The applicant was discharged on 20 August 1999.
An administrative decision made by a VA Regional Office in Chicago shows that agency determined that the applicant’s character of service for the period 9 March 1976 to 17 August 1992 was honorable for VA purposes; but that his character of service from 18 August 1992 to 20 August 1999 was dishonorable for VA purposes and that he was barred from all VA benefits, to include medical benefits, for that period of service.
Army Regulation 635-200 provides for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 3-10 states that a solider will be given a dishonorable discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general court-martial. The appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence order duly 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 applicant’s service prior to his wrongdoings was creditable. This factor, however, does not warrant the action requested by the applicant. He brought discredit to himself and the Army by his actions which resulted in his dishonorable discharge.
2. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.
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
___GDP _ __TAP _ __MHM _ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001064473 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020221 |
| 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. | 110.00 |
| 2. | 360. |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013257
The applicant requests an upgrade of her bad conduct discharge to a general discharge in order to receive the assistance she so desperately needs. Her record contains General Court-Martial Order Number 243, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Armor Center, Fort Knox, KY, dated 1 December 2000. that states in a general court-martial case of the applicant, the sentence of reduction to the rank of private/E-1, a forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 3 years, and a bad conduct...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080266C070215
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, the applicant states that he did not receive a rehabilitative transfer after his 1970 court-martial conviction. On 17 February 1976 the Army Discharge Review Board, in a majority opinion, denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003121
The applicant requests, in effect, that his dishonorable discharge (DD) be upgraded. The applicant states, in effect, that his DD should be upgraded due to the severity of his punishment. The evidence of record failed to establish a basis upon which clemency could be granted and upon which the severity of the punishment imposed could be moderated with an upgrade of the applicant's dishonorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001066270C070421
He stated that everything that he had was gone. The board findings and recommendations worksheet dated 16 January 2001 show that the board found that a preponderance of the evidence established that the applicant did commit a serious offense and that the board recommended that the applicant be separated from the service with an Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001373
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. Code of Federal Regulations Title 38, Section 3.12 (a) provides for an administrative determination by the VA that an "other than honorable discharge was issued under conditions other than dishonorable" to establish basic eligibility for VA benefits. His conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012400
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. If the sentence, as approved by the convening authority, includes a bad-conduct discharge, a dishonorable discharge, dismissal of an officer, or confinement for one year or more, the case is reviewed by the U.S. Army Court of Criminal...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06136-01
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, applied to this Board requesting that his naval record be corrected by setting aside the dishonorable discharge of 19 January 1999. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing all references to the GCM conviction of 23 August 1996. That the record be further corrected by removing all references to the dishonorable discharge of 19 January 1999.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012370
In the alternative, he requests that this Board upgrade his dishonorable discharge to an honorable discharge, as an act of clemency. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was convicted pursuant to his guilty pleas by a general court-martial adjudged on 13 November 2001. The applicant's available military records and documentation submitted with his application and his records contain no matters upon which the Board may grant clemency and an upgrade of his dishonorable discharge...
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 | CY2008 | 20080007013
On 1 September 1977, while still in BCT, he was released from military control by reason of a voided enlistment due to fraudulent enlistment under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14. However, there is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicants discharge was ever actually accomplished or that his discharge orders and DD Form 214 were ever published. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned...