| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Ms. Shirley L. Powell | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Stanley Kelley | Member | |
| Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he would like his record cleared or that his dishonorable discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That his commander targeted him because he unknowingly went out with the commander’s girlfriend. After that, the commander kept giving him a summary court-martial every chance he could. As for taking the jeep, he had a dispatch for the jeep in his possession, given him by the motor pool. After the sergeant came for him and his buddy at the gasthaus in their company area and told one of the guards to walk them back to their quarters, he and his buddy ran off to town but they were picked up and restricted. He feels they were poorly defended and represented by their military attorney. He is now 71 years old, has been an outstanding citizen of his community, and has no criminal record. He waited so long because he was told he did not have a chance to win an upgrade plus all his records were lost when his duffle bag was stolen upon his release. Now he would like a more favorable discharge before he dies. No supporting evidence is provided although the applicant mentions personal recognition from clergy, his police record, his community work, and his job record.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records were lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire in 1973. Information contained herein was obtained from his record of trial.
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 July 1949.
On an unknown date, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of operating a government vehicle at an excessive speed and gambling. On an unknown date, he was convicted by a special court-martial of larceny of three cartons of cigarettes.
On 9 December 1952, the applicant and one other soldier were convicted by a general court-martial of wrongfully appropriating a ¼ ton vehicle and of escaping from lawful custody. Testimony revealed that the vehicle in question was assigned to a third soldier and that an order of the battalion commander forbade anyone from driving a vehicle assigned to another. The applicant’s commander and first sergeant testified that they were the only individuals empowered to authorize the use of the unit’s vehicles on the night of the incident and that neither authorized either of the defendants to drive the vehicle in question. The applicant was found guilty contrary to his plea and a sentence of a dishonorable discharge, 2 years confinement at hard labor, and a forfeiture of all pay and allowances was adjudged. The defense counsel filed motions for a finding of not guilty as to both charges; however, the findings and the sentence were approved.
On 4 February 1953, the U. S. Army Board of Review affirmed the findings of guilty and sentence.
On 16 February 1954, the applicant was discharged with a dishonorable discharge pursuant to his sentence by court-martial.
Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552, as amended, precludes any action by this Board which would disturb the finality of a court-martial conviction.
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. There is no evidence to show the applicant’s attorney was incompetent or that his commander targeted him for court-martial for unwarranted reasons. 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.
3. The Board has taken cognizance of the applicant’s contention that his post-service conduct was good but that factor does not warrant the relief requested. Considering the circumstances in this case, there is no evidence that would justify granting clemency on the sentence.
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
__slp___ __sk____ __eja___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001065427 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020319 |
| 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 | CY1997 | 9709686C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his dishonorable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. He had no prior record of any disciplinary actions. On 25 June 1954, the U.S. Army Board of Review affirmed the sentence.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709686
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant’s military records are not available. He had no prior record of any disciplinary actions. On 25 June 1954, the U.S. Army Board of Review affirmed the sentence.
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 | CY2001 | 2001063615C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He had completed 1 year, 9 months, and 12 days of active military service. 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:
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00936 INDEX NUMBER:106.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. Other facts surrounding his discharge from the Air Force are unknown inasmuch as the complete discharge correspondence is not available. Applicant submitted a brief summary of his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007296
The applicant requests that his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant states he believes his discharge should be upgraded because the punishment he received was too severe. The applicant contends that his discharge should be upgraded because the punishment he received was too severe.
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2009-115
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. of the Personnel Manual “for misconduct due to his conviction and sentence for involuntary homicide.” He noted that the applicant was not entitled to an Adminis- trative Discharge Board because he had less than eight years of military service. of the Personnel Manual, Commander, CGPC may order the separation of a member for misconduct if the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070001699
The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of his dishonorable discharge to a general under honorable conditions discharge. General Court-Martial Order Number 32, dated 14 December 1992, shows that the convening authority approved the first court-martial finings and sentence except for that part of the sentence extending to a dishonorable discharge, will be executed. The applicant's contention that his dishonorable discharge should be upgraded to a general under honorable conditions...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019992
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 findings of guilty were based on the accused's plea of guilty. There is no evidence that he was not afforded due process.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065883C070421
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the administrative errors on his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214, be corrected and that his separation code (SPD) and authority and reason for discharge be changed to allow him to enlist in a Reserve component. In this affidavit his defense counsel states that the applicant was accused of an unauthorized weapons discharge and that discharge amounted to nothing more than unscheduled weapons training that was completely warranted. In...