| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was only an accessory to the larceny and received a BCD, while the person responsible for the larceny was allowed to stay in the service. He indicates that he has just now realized his appellate rights. He remembers his attorney saying that he could petition to have his discharge reviewed. He indicates he is submitting in support of this application a record of his court-martial at Fort Carson, Colorado. The court-martial record was not submitted.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
During the period 30 March 1977 to 30 January 1978, the applicant was a member of the Army Reserve.
On 31 January 1978, he enlisted in the Regular Army. He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63B (Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic). He was advanced to private first class, pay grade E-3, effective 1 September 1979.
On 8 January 1980, in consonance with his plea, he was convicted by a Special Court-Martial of larceny of a television and two stereophonic speakers from a fellow soldier. His sentence included confinement at hard labor (CHL) for 3 months, a forfeiture of $296 pay per month for 3 months and reduction to pay grade E-1 and a BCD.
On 12 February 1980, the appropriate authority approved only so much of the sentence as provided for a BCD, CHL for 3 months, a forfeiture of $224 pay per month for 3 months and reduction to pay grade E-1.
On 24 March 1980, he was placed on excess leave.
On 27 October 1980, the Army Court of Military Review affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence.
On 2 November 1981, the sentence was ordered executed.
On 24 November 1981, he was discharged with a BCD under paragraph 11, Army Regulation 635-200, as result of a court-martial conviction. His records show that he had 3 years, 7 months and 9 days of creditable service and 83 days of lost time and 611 days of excess leave.
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. 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, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.
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 applicant’s service did not then meet and does not now meet the standards of honorable service as defined in Army Regulation 635-200. Therefore, 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 honorable.
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
_sac____ _jtm____ _kwl____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002068098 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020507 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120003805
The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 23 February 1981 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 11-2, with a bad conduct character of service. c. Paragraph 11-2 provides that a Soldier would be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial after completion of the appellate review and after such affirmed sentence had been ordered duly executed. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072450C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Court of Military Appeals denied his petition for a Grant of Review on 5 July 1978. 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 | 2001051438C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Additionally, he had 3 months and 22 days of prior active service and he had 2 years, 4 months and 16 days of prior inactive service. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001051438SUFFIXRECONYYYYMMDDDATE BOARDED20010726TYPE OF DISCHARGE(BCD)DATE OF DISCHARGE19820729DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200, CH 11 REASONA04.00BOARD...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004101471C070208
On the date of the applicant's discharge, he had completed 6 years, 3 months, and 2 days active military service, with 252 days excess leave. Contrary to the applicant's contentions that this was the only occurrence in 6 years of dedicated service, the evidence of record shows that he received non-judicial punishment twice. The evidence of record failed to establish a basis upon which clemency could be granted and upon which the severity of the sentence imposed could be moderated with an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008235
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant was discharged on 17 July 1981 in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Separations), chapter 11, paragraph 11-2, as a result of court-martial and issued a BCD. The applicant has provided no evidence to show that his discharge was unjust at the time of his offense.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080134C070215
The record contains no evidence that he was ever punished for this offense. On 28 January 1987, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for clemency The available records contains no medical evidence and the applicant has provided no evidence that demonstrates he suffers from an illness or an injury that was either incurred in, or aggravated as a result of his military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056845C070420
The General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA) granted excess leave on 30 July 1980. The Board notes that while the applicant's first year of military service was outstanding, as noted in his performance evaluation report, he was subsequently punished on three separate occasions under Article 15 of the UCMJ and was reduced two pay grades, in addition to his conviction by a general court-martial. Although the Board does not generally act on issues which were not part of an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001757C070206
The applicant requests, in effect, that his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 4 May 1982, The Army Court of Military Review set aside Charge 1 (Conspiracy to commit larceny) and its specification, and reduced the applicant's sentence to reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $334.00 per month for 5 months, confinement at hard labor for 5 months and a bad conduct discharge 6. On 11 September 1992, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered the applicants...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001757C070206
Allen L. Raub | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 4 May 1982, The Army Court of Military Review set aside Charge 1 (Conspiracy to commit larceny) and its specification, and reduced the applicant's sentence to reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $334.00 per month for 5 months, confinement at hard labor for 5 months and a bad conduct discharge 6. On 11 September 1992, the Army Discharge Review Board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055013C070420
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. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The time for the applicant to file a...