| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Vic Whitney | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his bad conduct discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That he went through retraining before he was discharged. He was young and made some mistakes he regrets.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted and entered active duty on 12 March 1980, at 17 years and 9 months of age. He completed infantry training and was assigned to Germany. He was promoted to the pay grade of E-3 effective 1 March 1981. On 22 July 1981, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for disobeying a lawful order.
On 18 November 1982, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of four specifications of AWOL for a total of 189 days. The approved sentence included a bad conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor, a forfeiture of pay, and reduction to the pay grade of E-1. Effective 25 March 1983, he was placed on excess leave pending discharge. The sentence was affirmed on 13 August 1983 and ordered duly executed.
Effective 22 December 1983, the applicant was discharged in the pay grade of
E-1 under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 3, as a result of trial by court-martial. He had 2 years, 6 months, and 14 days creditable service and 350 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
On 30 March 1994, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. On 19 August 1996, the ADRB voted to deny the applicant's request based on the absence of evidence that clemency was warranted in his case.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 3, of that regulation, in effect at the time, provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel with a bad conduct discharge pursuant to an approved sentence of a special court-martial. The appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed.
With respect to records of courts-martial and related administrative records pertaining to court-martial cases tried or reviewed under chapter 47 of Title 10 (or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Public Law 506 of the 81st Congress)), action under subsection (a) may extend only to correction of a record to reflect actions taken by reviewing authorities under chapter 47 of this title (or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Public Law 506 of the 81st Congress)); or action on the sentence of a court-martial for purposes of clemency.
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 contention that he was young and made regrettable mistakes is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief. The Board notes that the applicant was almost 20 years of age at the time of his first AWOL. There is no information in the available record, or provided by the applicant, which forms a basis for a discharge upgrade based on clemency.
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
__jl___ ___ra___ ___tr_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002068608 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020709 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | BCD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19831222 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, chapter 3 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A68.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.02 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07260-06
On 20 October 1994, the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence as approved (copy attached). Finally, the authority of the BCNR and the Secretary under 10 U.S.C. has a court martial conviction that was upheld on appeal was reduced to Private E-l by a court-martial (not administratively) pursuant to his free and voluntary guilty plea regarding his “own misconduct.” There are no cases under Title 10 section 6334 or 6336 that override a final...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011898
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. The applicant was discharged on 12 October 1983 with a BCD. Chapter 3 provides that a Soldier will be given a punitive discharge (dishonorable discharge or BCD) pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009838
This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants 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. He also indicated he understood by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charges against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a discharge under other honorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004672C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year statute of limitations prescribed by law. James Gunlicks________ CHAIRPERSON INDEX |CASE ID |AR20060004672 | |SUFFIX | | |RECON |YYYYMMDD | |DATE BOARDED |20061005 | |TYPE OF DISCHARGE |DD | |DATE OF DISCHARGE |19850104...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071577C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He departed Germany on 21 July 1978, en route to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, with a report date of 24 August 1978. He failed to report as ordered and was reported as AWOL from 24 August 1978, until he was returned to military control on 7 September and charges were preferred against him for the absent without leave (AWOL) offense.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017743
He had over a year of honorable service. 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. Therefore, clemency in the form of an honorable or general discharge is not warranted in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100735C070208
The applicant was found guilty and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 3 months, forfeiture of $279.00 pay per month for 3 months, reduction to private/E-1, and a BCD. The Board is only empowered to change the severity of the sentence imposed in the court-martial process, and then only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was adjudged guilty by court-martial and that the convening authority approved the sentence.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021224
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 July 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110021224 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge (BCD) to a general discharge (GD). A review of the available record does not show that the applicant ever petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001661
The evidence of record shows the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial of the wrongful distribution of marijuana on 10 May 1983. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterized the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted. He completed training, was awarded an MOS, advanced to pay grade E-3, and completed a 1-year period of service in Germany prior to being tried.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002383
There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Therefore, clemency in the form of an honorable or general discharge is not warranted in this case.