| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John P. Infante | Member | |
| Mr. Stanley Kelley | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his trial by general court-martial be determined a mistrial.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the general court-martial was in error because there were no peers of his race on the jury, that the only black officer left the jury and that he pled not guilty. He also contends that he was reinstated back in the Armed Forces after completing restoration in Fort Leavenworth Disciplinary Barracks and that he was unjustly discharged after being under the influence of alcohol without signing any agreement or order.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted on 6 September 1978 for a period of 4 years. He successfully completed One Station Unit Training at Fort Gordon, Georgia, and was transferred to Germany for duty as a wire systems installer/operator.
On 14 November 1979, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for possessing a switchblade, disorderly conduct and assault and battery. He was reduced to the rank of Private (E-1), forfeited $100 for one month, and received 10 days extra duty.
On 13 February 1980, nonjudicial punishment was imposed for larceny. He forfeited $100 for one month, and was given 14 days extra duty and restriction.
On 7 January 1981, while in Germany, the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial of robbery and nine specifications of making worthless checks and thereafter dishonorably fail to maintain sufficient funds. He was sentenced to forfeit $200 pay per month for 6 months, to be confined at hard labor for
6 months, and to be discharged from the service with a bad conduct discharge. On 27 March 1981, the convening authority approved the sentence.
The United States Army Court of Military Review affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence on 26 February 1982. The applicant’s petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Military Review was denied by the United States Army Court of Military Appeals on 2 June 1982.
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with a bad conduct discharge on
12 July 1982 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, as a result of court-martial. He had served 3 years, 5 months and 15 days of total active service with 142 days of lost time due to confinement and 298 days of excess leave.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 11 of this regulation, in effect at the time, 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.
Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. 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 set aside a conviction. Rather it 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. Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed.
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. The Board considered the applicant’s request that his trial by general court-martial be determined a mistrial. However, by law, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records is not empowered to set aside a court-martial conviction.
2. The Board considered the applicant’s contention that the general court-martial was in error because there were no peers of his race on the jury. However, there is no evidence of record available to the Board, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support this contention.
3. The applicant’s contention that he was unjustly discharged after being under the influence of alcohol without signing any agreement or order is not supported by the evidence of record. Evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged as a result of a general court-martial.
4. The applicant has failed to show that the general court-martial proceedings were not conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time or that he was denied due process. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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
RVO____ JPI_____ SK______ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002069004 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020718 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | BCD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19820712 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | 635-200 Chapter 11 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | As a result of court-martial |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 123.0400 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015297
A review of the available records does not show that the applicant ever petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. _______ _ __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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090015297 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007872
When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. His conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable or a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140021741
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 August 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140021741 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. a. Paragraph 3-10 of this regulation states that a Soldier will be given a dishonorable discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general court-martial. When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017651
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 6 May 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090017651 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015537
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 18 March 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090015537 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. 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. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the discharge appropriately...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120000425
Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. The applicant contends that his BCD should be upgraded because the judge did not give the jury instructions on any other type of discharge besides that of a BCD and his discharge was inequitable. In both instances, the sentence to a BCD was affirmed.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011698
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. However, the convening authoritys decision, dated 16 June 1986, shows the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial on 30 October 1985 and sentenced to be reduced to E-1, to forfeit all pay and allowances, to be confined for 30...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082519C070215
The record of trial was forwarded to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for review by a Court of Military Review. On 16 June 1986, the United States Court of Military Appeals denied the applicant's petition for grant of review. 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 | CY2009 | 20090013649
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests that his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018427
When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant a general discharge. _______ _ __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.