| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Mr. Stanley Kelley | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaugnessy, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That her bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general under honorable conditions.
APPLICANT STATES: That she has been out of the Army for 18 years and was not told that she could request this action.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
During the period 20 August to 31 October 1979, she was assigned to the Army Reserve Delayed Entry Program.
On 1 November 1979, she enlisted in the Regular Army. She completed her required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 72E (Telecommunications Center Operator).
During the period 16 June 1980 to 13 June 1982, she served in a unit in Germany.
On 28 December 1981, she was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for her failure to go to her designated place of duty on 30 November 1981, and for disobeying a lawful regulation by allowing an unauthorized person to operate a motor vehicle. Her punishment was a forfeiture of $149 and 5 days extra duty.
On 2 September 1982, she was convicted by a General Court-Martial of assault, conspiracy, and communicating a threat. Her sentence included forfeiture of all pay and allowances and a BCD. The sentence was approved on 8 November 1982.
On 21 October 1983, the US Army Court of Military Review affirmed the findings of guilty but set aside the forfeiture of any pay and allowances becoming due on or after the date of the action and the sentence. The appellate review was completed on 20 April 1984.
On 29 May 1984, she was discharged with a BCD under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, based on the result of a court-martial conviction. Her separation document indicates she had 4 years, 1 month, and 15 days of creditable active service, 137 days of lost time, and 219 days of excess leave.
Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 11 provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel with an approved sentence to a BCD, after completion of the appellate review and after the sentence had been affirmed.
The statutory authority under which this Board was created (Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, as amended) precludes any action by this Board, which would disturb the finality of a court-martial conviction. This Board may take 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. Therefore, the Board concludes that clemency is not warranted in this case.
2. 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.
3. 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:
_sk_____ __jtm___ _teo____ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002069183 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020606 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 107 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | CY2001 | 2001053024C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. She was credited with 4 years, 6 months, and 10 days of active military service. However, after a careful review of the applicant’s records, the Board determined that the applicant enlisted for 4 years and that she extended that period of enlistment by 12 months prior to completing her initial enlistment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060704C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 15 April 1983, the applicant was discharged with a BCD pursuant to his sentence by general court-martial. 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 | 2002072184C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 17 November 1981, his commander notified him that he was considering whether he should impose NJP against the applicant for being disrespectful towards a noncommissioned officer. 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.
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 | CY2001 | 2001056194C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He was sentenced to a forfeiture, confinement at hard labor for three months, and to be discharged from the service with a bad conduct 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 | DRB | CY2005 | 20050000823C070206
The applicant requests upgrade of his bad conduct discharge to an honorable discharge. On 21 April 1981, the military judge sentenced the applicant to reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of $250.00 per month for four months, confinement at hard labor for 75 days, and to be discharged from the service with a bad conduct discharge. Therefore, there is no basis to grant clemency in the form of an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000823C070206
The applicant requests upgrade of his bad conduct discharge to an honorable discharge. On 21 April 1981, the military judge sentenced the applicant to reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of $250.00 per month for four months, confinement at hard labor for 75 days, and to be discharged from the service with a bad conduct discharge. Therefore, there is no basis to grant clemency in the form of an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000823C070206
The applicant requests upgrade of his bad conduct discharge to an honorable discharge. On 21 April 1981, the military judge sentenced the applicant to reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of $250.00 per month for four months, confinement at hard labor for 75 days, and to be discharged from the service with a bad conduct discharge. Therefore, there is no basis to grant clemency in the form of an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061022C070421
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...