| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. G. E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general under honorable conditions.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the characterization of his discharge is too severe for the infraction cited in his general court-martial. He states that he was in serious debt at the time he was to be released from service. He justifies his actions by stating that he was being threatened to pay back the money he owed so when his friend refused to loan him the money he needed, he stole a bag that contained drugs and money thinking that it would not be reported. He avers that when he was arrested, the military police threw away the drugs.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant entered active duty on 18 November 1971. Upon completion of training as a medical corpsman he was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, 3rd Battalion, 17th Artillery Regiment in Germany.
The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), five times for being absent from his place of duty on eight occasions.
On 24 January 1974, the applicant was tried by a general court-martial for robbery of four soldiers, four separate specifications of violation of Article 122, UCMJ, (robbery from the person of another by means of force with fear of injury). He plead guilty to all four specifications and was sentenced to be reduced to pay grade E-1, confinement at hard labor for 36 months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge.
On 27 May 1974, the convening authority approved the sentence, but reduced the period of confinement to 1 year and the discharge to a bad conduct discharge.
The findings and sentence were affirmed upon review and the Court of Military Appeals denied the appeal to hear the case. The Secretary of the Army reduced the sentenced confinement to 10 months, on 29 August 1974, and the BCD was ordered executed on 3 May 1975.
The applicant was discharged on 19 May 1975. He received a Bad Conduct Discharge Certificate with a characterization of service of under conditions other than honorable. He had 2 years, 7 months, and 1 day of creditable service with a total of 335 days lost due to confinement.
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 contentions relate to evidentiary and procedural matters which were finally and conclusively adjudicated in the court-martial appellate process, and furnish no basis for recharacterization of the discharge.
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.
| CASE ID | AR2002068624 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020905 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | A68.03 |
| 2. | 105.00 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052285C070420
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 | CY2003 | 2003087029C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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: The Board notes the applicant's contention that he was under extreme stress due to his house being robbed and his wife raped shortly before the incident for which he was convicted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084226C070212
On 12 April 1976, the applicant's commander submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to conviction by civil authorities. Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, for misconduct – conviction by civil authorities. There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074480C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The convening authority did not agree with the recommendation of the investigating officer and directed that the applicant be tried by a general court-martial. Although his accomplice ended up with a less harsh sentence than he did, the applicant was granted an upgrade of his discharge from a BCD to a general discharge by the Army Clemency and Parole Board and he has not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068597C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: 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 | CY2002 | 2002075172C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. His first enlistment ended with an honorable discharge in the rank of Sergeant. The ADRB denied his request on 28 November 1980.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078915C070215
In accordance with Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records is not empowered to change a discharge due to matters which should have been raised in the appellate process. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was adjudged guilty by court-martial and that the convening authority approved the sentence. The Board finds no reason to grant clemency in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057304C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 30 March 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to honorable. On 30 March 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to honorable.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051554C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 30 March 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to honorable. On 30 March 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to honorable.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02116-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 June 2001. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...