| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his records be corrected to show that his characterization of service was upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.
APPLICANT STATES: That he has made repeated attempts to obtain a copy of his records, to no avail. He needs the records so he can be listed at the Texas Unemployment Commission under veteran status.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
During the period 16 July to 15 September 1982, he was in the Army Reserve Delayed Enlistment Program.
On 16 September 1982, he enlisted in the Regular Army. He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76W (Petroleum Supply Specialist). He attained pay grade E-2, effective 16 March 1983.
On 18 November 1983, he was convicted by a Special Court-Martial of conspiring to damage to two of his senior noncommissioned officer’s personal property and of causing $593 and $274 damage, respectively. His sentence included a reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of $250 pay per month for 3 months, confinement at hard labor (CHL) for 75 days and a bad conduct discharge (BCD).
During the period 18 November 1983 to 19 January 1984, he served his CHL.
On 26 July 1984, his sentence was affirmed and ordered executed.
On 23 August 1984, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, based on the court-martial sentence. His separation document indicates he had 1 year, 9 months and 7 days of creditable service and 61 days of lost time.
This Board operates under the standard of presumption of regularity in governmental affairs. The standard states, in effect, that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board must presume that all actions taken by the military were proper. There is nothing in the records or in the evidence submitted by the applicant that overcomes this presumption.
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. 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.
2. The characterization of the applicant’s current discharge is appropriate considering all the facts of the case. There also is no apparent error, injustice, inequity, or change in policy or standards on which to base recharacterization of his discharge to under honorable conditions.
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
_rwa___ _kyf____ _aao___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002066841 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020404 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057278C070420
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062845lC070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 16 July 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051373C070420
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. On 12 November 1980, he was discharged, with a BCD, under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, based on his conviction by a court-martial. The applicant has...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076466C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 2 May 1984, the suspension of the punishment of forfeiture of $125.00, which had been imposed on 19 April 1984, was vacated because the applicant failed to be at PT (physical training) formation on 27 April 1984. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057242C070420
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The record of trial was forwarded to the United States Army Court of Military Review for appellate review. No pay records were available for review.
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 | CY2002 | 2002071187C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. His DD Form 214 indicates that he had 3 years and 28 days of creditable service and 655 days of lost time. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010715C070208
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with a bad conduct discharge on 4 April 1984 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 3, as a result of a court-martial. Although the applicant contends that he was discharged in February or March 1983 and his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged in April 1984, evidence of record shows the applicant was placed on excess leave from 14 January 1983 to 4 April 1984, for a total of 447 days. Upon completion of his appellate review the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069183C070402
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061874C070421
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...