Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
Ms. Beverly A. Young | Analyst |
Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
Mr. Hubert O. Fry | Member | |
Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by upgrading his discharge under other than honorable conditions to an honorable discharge and payment of retirement benefits for his 20 years of honorable service.
APPLICANT STATES: That appeals in his case were not completed and that his requests for retirement benefits were not processed. The applicant contends that the appeals in his case were not completed, filled out, or signed by him.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the decisional document prepared to reflect the consideration of Docket Number AC92-07029 by the Army Board for Correction of Military Record’s (ABCMR) on 24 November 1993.
The applicant’s arguments regarding appeal of his court-martial conviction and processing of his retirement are new arguments which will be considered by the Board.
The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 are not present in his records. However, the applicant’s DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows that he was discharged on 20 October 1989 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service -in lieu of trial by court-martial and that he was issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge. At the time of his discharge, he had completed 21 years, 9 months and 2 days active military service.
Notwithstanding the entries on the applicant’s DD Form 214, evidence of record shows the applicant was tried by general court-martial in April 1988 and, based on his own request, accepted the adjudged sentence to be separated with a bad conduct discharge (in addition to a forfeiture and reduction) instead of receiving the sentence agreed to as a result of a plea bargain executed prior to trial.
Records show that, on 30 November 1988, the Army Court of Military Review approved the bad conduct discharge, but amended the amount of the forfeiture. Records also show that the United States Court of Military Appeals considered the applicant’s case and denied his petition for grant of review on 9 March 1989.
Evidence of record demonstrates the applicant’s DD Form 214 was improperly prepared at the time of his separation in that it showed that he was separated
under other than honorable conditions based on the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, instead of with a bad conduct discharge adjudged by a general court-martial.
Evidence of record cited in the consideration of Docket Number AC92-07029 by the Army Board for Correction of Military Record’s (ABCMR) on 24 November 1993 shows that the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) had processed the applicant’s request for retirement and had approved it on 20 May 1988, which was prior to completion of appellate review and execution of the adjudged sentence which included the bad conduct discharge.
Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth the policy and procedures for the ABCMR. It provides that, if a request for a reconsideration is received within one year of the prior consideration and the case has not been previously reconsidered, it will be resubmitted to the Board if there is evidence (including but not limited to any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted) that was not in the record at the time of the Board’s prior consideration. The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence has been submitted.
The regulation provides further guidance for reconsideration requests that are received more than 1 year after the Board’s original consideration or after the Board has already reconsidered the case. In such cases, the staff of the Board will review the request to determine if substantial relevant evidence has been submitted that shows fraud, mistake in law, mathematical miscalculation, manifest error, or if there exists substantial relevant new evidence discovered contemporaneously with or within a short time after the Board’s original decision. If the staff finds such evidence, the case will be resubmitted to the Board. If no such evidence is found, the application will be returned without action.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 3-11 of this regulation states that a soldier will 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 sentence ordered duly executed.
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.
Section 1552(f), Title 10, United States Code states that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records can only review records of court-martial and related administrative records to correct a record to accurately reflect action taken by reviewing authorities under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) or to take clemency action.
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. Headquarters, 7th Infantry Division and Fort Ord (California) General Court Martial Order Number 8, dated 30 March 1989, shows the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial on 25 April 1988 of bribery. He was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, forfeiture of $447.00 pay per month for 12 months, and reduction to pay grade E-1.
2. Although there is no evidence available to the Board which indicates that the applicant requested discharge under chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 in lieu of court-martial prior to the final action taken by the general court-martial convening authority (GCMCA), the applicant was issued a DD Form 214 which indicates that he was discharged on 20 October 1989 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court-martial. This DD Form 214 also shows that he was separated with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.
3. It is apparent to this Board that, but for an administrative error, the applicant would have received a DD Form 214 which showed he had been separated from active duty with a bad conduct discharge adjudged by a general court-martial.
4. The Board considered the applicant’s contention that appeals in his case were not completed, specifically that he did not complete, fill out, or sign them. However, the Board found that evidence of record shows the Army Court of Military Review took action in the applicant’s case and the United States Court of Military Appeals considered his case and denied his petition for grant of review. Therefore, this applicant’s contention is without merit.
5. The Board considered the applicant’s contention that his retirement benefits have not been processed. Evidence of record shows that PERSCOM did process his retirement on 20 May 1988. However, the Board determined that the adjudged and approved sentence to be separated with a bad conduct discharge, rendered him ineligible for receipt of retired pay and benefits. The Board also noted that separation with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate resulting from processing under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 in lieu of trial by court-martial also would render a soldier ineligible for receipt of retired pay and benefits.
6. This Board noted the administrative error in the applicant’s DD Form 214 issued at the time of his discharge from the Army. As a result, the Board carefully considered all aspects of the applicant’s offenses and the true basis for his discharge from the Army. The Board concluded that trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses charged. Further, the Board found that conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the bad conduct discharge adjudged appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted. Therefore, this Board finds that there is no basis for granting clemency in this case which would result in the upgrade of his bad conduct discharge to an honorable discharge.
7. This Board also reviewed the separation document now held by the applicant which shows that he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 under other than honorable conditions. Based on the facts leading to the applicant’s separation from the Army, the Board found no basis to administratively correct or amend this document to show that he received an honorable discharge.
8. Finally, this Board finds that the overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments, are insufficient as a basis for this Board to reverse the decisions of the ABCMR panel which considered Docket Number AC92-07029 on 24 November 1993.
9. 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 either requirement.
10. 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
AAO_____ HOF_____ TEO_____ DENY APPLICATION
Carl W. S. Chun
CASE ID | AR2001065731 |
SUFFIX | |
RECON | This applies only to ADRB |
DATE BOARDED | 20020430 |
TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19891020 |
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, Chapter 10 |
DISCHARGE REASON | For the Good of the Service-in lieu of trial by court-martial |
BOARD DECISION | DENY |
REVIEW AUTHORITY | Mr. Chun |
ISSUES 1. | 144.0000 |
2. | |
3. | |
4. | |
5. | |
6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100015858
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against him or her or of a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and he or she must indicate that he or she has been briefed and understands the consequences...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012049
The applicant requests his discharge be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial on 29 August 1980 and directed issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. It further directed issuance of a new DD Form 214 to correct his discharge from under other than honorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081686C070215
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. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. In this case the staff of the Board finds that the letters attesting to the applicant’s post-service conduct are relevant new evidence to warrant resubmission of his case to the Board.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009290
His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged in the rank/grade of private/E-1 as a result of court-martial in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations), chapter 3, with a bad conduct discharge. His conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted. Therefore, clemency in the form of an honorable or general discharge is not warranted in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014230
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 April 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130014230 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged on 8 May 1998 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 3 as a result of court-martial. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080000390
The applicant requests, in effect, that his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to a general or an honorable discharge, so that he may receive his retirement pay at age 60. In the personal statement submitted by the applicant, he claims he was not convicted of the most serious charge levied against him and he is requesting an upgrade to his discharge based on Army Regulation 135-178 (Enlisted Administration Separations), paragraph 1-11. As such, the bad conduct discharge was the appropriate...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009501
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-11, provides that a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial. ____________x_____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130006579
The applicant requests to upgrade his characterization of service from bad conduct to general, under honorable conditions. The service record indicates the applicant was adjudged guilty by a court-martial and the sentence was approved by the convening authority. NA Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Board Vote: Character Change: 3 No Change: 2 Reason Change: 0 No Change: 5 (Board member names available upon request) Board Action Directed: Issue a new DD Form 214: Yes Change...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000833
A copy of the separation authority's approval is not available for review with this case; however, it appears that on or about 18 February 1988, the separation authority approved his request for discharge for the good of the service in accordance with chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 and directed he receive an under honorable conditions character of service. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a characterization of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015606
Headquarters, U.S. Army Correctional Activity, Fort Riley, KS, General Court-Martial Order Number 136, dated 23 March 1988, shows that after completion of all required post-trial and appellate reviews, the convening authority ordered the applicant's bad conduct discharge duly executed. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged in the rank/grade of private/E-1 as a result of court-martial in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations), chapter 3, with a bad conduct...