| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Ms. Paula Mokulis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that clemency in the form of a general discharge be granted.
APPLICANT STATES: That his bad conduct discharge should be upgraded because he learned his lesson, he served his time, and he accepts responsibility for his actions. In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted on 10 September 1986 for a period of 3 years. He attended One Station Unit Training at Fort Benning, Georgia, and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (infantry).
The applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) on 31 August 1987 and returned to military control on 2 September 1987.
He went AWOL again on 16 November 1987, was apprehended by civil authorities on 13 July 1988 and returned to military control on 24 February 1989.
On 12 April 1989, the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial of desertion from 16 November 1987 to 24 February 1989, making a false official statement with the intent to deceive and writing bad checks for a total of $2179.82. He was sentenced to be reduced to E-1, to forfeit all pay and allowances, to be confined for 4 years, and to be discharged from the service with a dishonorable discharge. On 25 May 1989, the convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as provides for a bad conduct discharge, confinement for 30 months and reduction to E-1.
The United States Army Court of Military Review affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence on 28 February 1990. 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 21 September 1990. His conviction having been finally affirmed, his bad conduct discharge was ordered on 7 May 1991 to be executed.
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with a bad conduct discharge on
14 June 1991 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-11, as a result of a court-martial order. He had served 1 year, 2 months and 4 days of total active service with 642 days lost due to AWOL and confinement. He also had 636 days lost subsequent to his normal expiration term of service.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 3-11 of this regulation 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.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.
Section 1552(f), Title 10, United States Code states that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records can only review records of court-martial and related administrative records to correct a record to accurately reflect action taken by reviewing authorities under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) or to take clemency action.
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 applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations.
2. The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that the actions taken in his case were in error or unjust.
3. The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included one general court-martial conviction for desertion and determined that his military record was not satisfactory. Therefore, the Board determined that clemency in the form of a general discharge was not warranted in this case.
4. 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.
5. 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
FNE____ RWA____ PM______ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002070471 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020516 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (BCD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19910614 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 Chapter 3 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | As a result of court-martial order |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0200 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012206
The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separations), paragraph 3-11, by reason of court-martial, with a BCD. General Court-Martial Order Number 641, issued by the U.S. Army Correctional Activity, Fort Riley, KS, dated 9 October 1990, states the applicant's sentence to a BCD, confinement for 18 months, and a forfeiture of $600.00 pay for 18...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002742
His record is void of the complete facts and circumstances of his discharge; however, his records contain a DD Form 214 showing he was discharged in pay grade E-1 on 4 October 1990, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Administrative Personnel Separations), chapter 3, As a result of court-martial, with a bad conduct discharge. The applicant was convicted by a general court-martial and was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge. His discharge was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004171
The applicant requests an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge. He was discharged on 30 May 1990. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged as a result of court-martial in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) with a bad conduct discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001039
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 August 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120001039 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant provides military medical treatment records dated between August 1983 and October 1988. In addition, his record is void of any medical treatment records and the treatment records he provides, while showing he suffered from an adjustment disorder, fails to show he was suffering from a physical or mental condition that would have contributed to the misconduct...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017466
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 June 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130017466 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests upgrade of his bad conduct discharge to honorable. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the final discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which the he was convicted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004758
The applicant requests an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge. The sentence was approved and, except for the part of the sentence pertaining to a bad conduct discharge, ordered to be executed. U.S. Army Correctional Brigade, General Court-Martial Order Number 757, dated 4 December 1990, shows the applicant's sentence to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for 14 months, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances, adjudged on 29 September 1989, as promulgated in General Court-Martial Order...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004106311C070208
On 9 August 1990, the United States Army Court of Military Review affirmed the findings and approved the sentence of the general court- martial. There is no evidence available to indicate the applicant ever petitioned the United States Court of Military Appeals for review of the decision of the Army Court of Military Review. The applicant was placed in pretrial confinement on 10 October 1989 and adjudged on 25 January 1990, a period of only 3 months and 15 days.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016642
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted. Based on his overall record of indiscipline his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015559
The applicant requests his dishonorable discharge be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an under other than honorable conditions discharge, or a bad conduct discharge. 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. His conviction, confinement, and discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012807
When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. The applicants contentions that he was not properly advised by counsel and that he received a harsh sentence relate to evidentiary and procedural matters that should have been addressed and conclusively adjudicated in his general court-martial and appellate proceedings. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently...