| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr. | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Stanley Kelley | Member | |
| Mr. John P. Infante | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That there is no record of the 1971 conviction. He dates the discovery of the alleged error or injustice as 5 March 2001 and states that he did not know that he could use the dismissal as the basis for upgrading his discharge. In support of his case he submits a letter from a Regional Director of the National Incarcerated Veterans Network, Incorporated, that states the writer has been counseling the applicant about how to live a better life and recommends that the discharge be upgraded. The applicant also submits a 24 September 1971 court document showing that case, docket number C 71-508, was being dismissed with prejudice because, on 21 July 1971, the applicant had been sentenced to 3 to 10 years under docket number C71-507 and had not appealed.
COUNSEL CONTENDS: Counsel concurs in the applicant's presentation and requests that all reasonable doubt be resolved in the applicant's favor. Counsel also noted that the applicant had [previously] submitted documentation to show that the conviction had been expunged.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant volunteered for induction and entered active duty on 15 June 1970. He completed training and was ordered to the Overseas Replacement Station for Europe.
On 28 June 1971, he was convicted in Circuit Court, Macomb County, Michigan of armed robbery and sentenced to 3 to 10 years in the State Prison of Michigan.
His commander notified him in a 13 October 1971 letter of recommended discharge for civil conviction. He was warned that he could expect to receive an undesirable discharge but that action would be suspended to give him a chance to exercise his rights. He was notified of his rights to request or waive a board of officers, to be represented by counsel and to submit written statements in his own behalf. The letter stated that the separation action would be suspended for approximately 30 days if the applicant did not respond to the letter of notification and would be suspended indefinitely if he chose to appeal the conviction.
The applicant waived his rights to have a board of officers consider his case and to be represented by counsel. He also chose not to submit statements in his own behalf and he stated that he did not intend to appeal the conviction.
The separation authority approved the recommended discharge and directed that an Undesirable Discharge Certificate be issued.
On 23 March 1972, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206. He had 10 months and 8 days of creditable service and 331 days lost time.
Army Regulation 635-206, then in effect, provided, in pertinent part, that an enlisted member who was convicted by a civilian court of an offense for which the authorized punishment under the UCMJ included confinement of 1 year or more was to be considered for elimination. When separation for civil conviction was warranted an undesirable discharge was considered appropriate.
The Manual for Courts-Martial, Table of Maximum Punishments shows that 10 years confinement is authorized for the offense of robbery.
On 4 January 1974 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request for an upgrade. On 15 November 1982 the ADRB re-considered the case to address the applicant's contention that an upgrade was warranted because the record had been expunged.
He submitted court documents showing that on 29 April 1975 he had been sentenced to 7 to 15 years imprisonment for another armed robbery committed while he was on parole. While that case was pending the applicant brought forth a motion to set aside the original case (docket number C-71-507). That motion was granted and a new trial ordered. The judge then agreed with the prosecution "That because of the disposition of the latter charge and, further because the sentence having already been served on the 1971 case, it is felt that further prosecution is not warranted in this matter and that the ends of justice would not be served by bringing this case to trial." Accordingly, the old case (on which the applicant had been discharged) was not retried and the record was expunged.
The ADRB denied the applicant's requests.
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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
2. The applicant's original conviction was set aside on a technicality and the record was expunged because the prosecutor recommended that retrial was not warranted in that the applicant had been sentence to a second, longer imprisonment for a similar offense.
3. The applicant now offers court documents to show that a third, but earlier, offense had been dismissed because of his conviction and sentencing for the offense that led to the discharge.
4. The contentions of the applicant and his counsel have been noted by the Board. However, they are not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record. The discharge process was in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the applicant's service was appropriately characterized. None of the evidence offered shows that, subsequent to the conviction that led to the discharge, any action was taken that was based on the merits of the case.
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___ __SK ___ __JPI___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002069303 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020718 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19730323 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-206 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A61.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001681
On 14 May 1971, the applicant's intermediate commander recommended approval of the applicant's discharge, with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, and remarked that the applicant's sentence to confinement for not less than 25 years warranted his discharge from the Army. Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for misconduct. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024917
On 1 July 1975, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation that the applicant be discharged from the service because of conviction by a civil court under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 and directed that the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Based on the foregoing, there is an insufficient basis to upgrade the applicant's discharge to an honorable discharge or to a general discharge under honorable conditions. _______ _ _x______...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009227
The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable or general discharge. The applicant essentially states that he was arrested and convicted of first degree armed robbery in 1977 in the State of Washington, but since that time he has no criminal history. However, the applicant was not awarded a personal decoration which might have warranted a general discharge, and his record of misconduct so far outweighs his record of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007542
The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. __________ 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000148
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a discharge under honorable conditions (General Discharge). Accordingly, he was discharged in absentia with an undesirable discharge on 1 June 1973, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to conviction by civil authorities. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004874
The applicant was accordingly discharged on 26 April 1972. Furthermore, Army Regulation 635-206, paragraph 33 provided, in pertinent part, that members convicted by civil authorities would be considered for separation. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017885
On 20 December 1974, the unit commander notified the applicant of his recommendation for his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations Discharge Misconduct) by reason of misconduct for conviction for robbery by a Republic of Korea Civil Court on 19 July 1974. __________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. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016423
BOARD DATE: 13 March 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110016423 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 2 July 1973, his immediate commander submitted a request for authority to discharge the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 based on his conviction by civil authorities of armed robbery, sentence to 12 years of incarceration, and confinement in a state correctional facility. The evidence of record shows the applicant was convicted by a civil court for armed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004978C070206
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge, characterized as under other than honorable conditions, be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to upgrade his discharge. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015736
On 8 June 1974, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant elected to have his case considered by a board of officers, to be granted a personal appearance before the board, and to be represented by counsel. Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 27 September 1974 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to conviction by civil authorities. After considering all of the available evidence, the ADRB determined that under the circumstances...