| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to a more favorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he has paid his debt to the Army by accepting the punishment he was given and believes that he has suffered long enough. He also states that he made some bad choices and mistakes in his life but has learned from his mistakes and has gotten his life on track. He further states that there were mistakes made in the conduct of his urinalysis that should have been questioned and contends that he should have been afforded treatment for his chemical dependency problem. In support of his application, he submits a certificate showing his completion of a chemical dependency course, four letters from noncommissioned officers (NCO) and documents related to his urinalysis.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted on 24 January 1989 for a period of 4 years and training as a food service specialist. He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Germany on 23 June 1989. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 April 1991.
He completed his tour in Germany on 26 February 1992 and was transferred to Fort Carson, Colorado, where he reenlisted on 15 September 1992, for a period of 3 years.
On 9 December 1994, he was convicted by a general court-martial of disrespect towards an NCO, dereliction of duty, two specifications of wrongful use of cocaine and one specification of the wrongful use of marijuana. He was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for 6 months, a forfeiture of pay and reduction to the pay grade of E-1.
On 19 January 1996, the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence of the general court-martial.
The sentence having been affirmed, the bad conduct discharge was ordered to be executed on 4 November 1996 and the applicant was discharged pursuant to the sentence of a general court-martial on 18 December 1996. He had served 7 years and 6 months of total active service and had 145 days of lost time due to imprisonment.
The applicant applied to this Board on 5 February 1999, requesting that his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to a medical discharge so that he could receive treatment for a service-incurred disability. The Board opined at that time that he had been properly discharged pursuant to a general court-martial conviction; however, the Board determined that his service until 14 September 1992, when he was discharged for the purpose of reenlistment, had been honorable service and warranted a complete and unconditional discharge. The Board denied his request for further relief.
The documents submitted by the applicant consists of four letters from noncommissioned officers who attest that the applicant was a good soldier and food service specialist. They all contend that he should have been restored to duty and afforded a second chance. He also submits a certificate showing his completion of a chemical dependency course on 22 August 2000, documents relating to his conduct while in confinement and an unofficial copy of a ledger indicating that he had submitted a urinalysis and the names were reversed on the sheet.
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.
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 type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore appear to be appropriate considering the available facts of the case.
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.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
___sac__ __mm___ __tl_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002070479 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/08/01 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | BCD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1996/12/18 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | 635-200/CH3 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | GCM |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 675 | 144.6800/A68.00/BCD |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01127 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be changed to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. RITA S. LOONEY Panel Chair 15 SEP 1998 MEMORANDUMFORAFBCMR FROM: AFLSA/JAJM 112 Luke...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018850
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 June 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130018850 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. However, the misconduct resulting in his court-martial and bad conduct discharge greatly diminishes his earlier good service.
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01127
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01127 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be changed to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. At the time of the offense for which the applicant was court-martialed, he was a staff sergeant with over nine years of active service. We...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01127 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be changed to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. At the time of the offense for which the applicant was court-martialed, he was a staff sergeant with over nine years of active service. We...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00765
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00765 INDEX CODE: 110.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 7 March 1989, the Air Force Court of Military Review (now called the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals) affirmed the findings of guilty and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070016759C071029
Roland S. Venable | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant’s adjudged sentence was to be confined for two years and to be discharged with a bad conduct discharge. In pertinent part, it states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000079
His records contain an Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 11 February 2002, wherein it shows in: a. There is no evidence in the applicant's records that shows a DD Form 214 was ever completed or issued to him. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by issuing the applicant a DD Form 214 for the period 10 May 1985 through 13 May 2005 and showing in: * Item 1 (Name (Last, First, Middle)) as shown on his enlistment...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056145C070420
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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060007809C070205
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 December 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060007809 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests, in effect, that his dishonorable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge or general discharge under honorable conditions. On 21 June 1989, the United States Army Court of Military...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03552
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03552 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 25 MAY 07 ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). At the time of the offense, the applicant was a 35 year old Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) with over 13...