| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deyon D. Battle | Analyst |
| Ms. Melinda M. Darby | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his dishonorable discharge be upgraded to a general or an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was never allowed to defend his actions and that the type of discharge that he received is too harsh considering the nature of his offenses.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was inducted into the Army on 28 December 1942 and he successfully completed his training as a laborer.
The applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial on 2 July 1943, of being absent without proper authority. He was sentenced to restriction to the company area for 15 days and a forfeiture of pay.
On 22 July 1943, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon. He was sentenced to a forfeiture of pay.
On 28 September 1943, the applicant was again convicted by a summary
court-martial of being absent without proper authority. He was sentenced to confinement at the company stockade for 30 days and a forfeiture of pay.
He was convicted by a special court-martial on 22 December 1943, of being absent without proper authority. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 4 months and a forfeiture of pay.
On 19 June 1944, the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial of feloniously taking, stealing and carrying away sixty pounds of sugar and fifty pounds of red kidney beans (government rations) and for leaving his post before he was properly relieved. He was sentenced to a dishonorable discharge, confinement at hard labor for 10 years, and a total forfeiture of pay. During the court-martial proceedings, he was represented by counsel and he testified in his own behalf. He pleaded not guilty and he stated that he did not intend to steal or willfully take anything but that he was helping out a sergeant major friend of his in the British Army by getting him supplies. The Staff Judge Advocate’s review noted that the taking of government rations was aggravated by the fact that the offense was committed while he was posted as a guard to safeguard the security of those rations.
On 8 December 1944, the convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged. Apparently, shortly thereafter a substantial period of the approved confinement was remitted or the applicant was placed on parole. Accordingly on 16 February 1945, after his release from confinement, he was dishonorably discharged as a result of a court-martial conviction.
The Articles of War Manual for Courts-Martial for the period covering 1 April 1928 through 31 January 1949 governed the Armies of the United States with respect to all court-martial processes taken during the applicant’s period of enlistment. It provided that the maximum punishment for the violation of Article 86 (any sentinel who leaves his post before he is regularly relieved) was confinement at hard labor for 1 year, a dishonorable discharge and a forfeiture of all pay and allowances. However, the limitations upon punishments for violations of Articles of War 58, 59, and 86 were suspended until further order, as to offenses committed after 3 February 1942 by Executive Order Number 9048 dated 3 February 1942. Therefore, the maximum punishment that the applicant could have received for leaving his post before he was regularly relieved was death.
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 actions by the Army in this case were proper, and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.
2. 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 acts of misconduct for which the applicant was convicted.
3. The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions; however, they are unsupported by the evidence of record. The record clearly shows that he testified during his trial and that he was properly represented by counsel.
4. The Board has also noted that the applicant’s confinement at hard labor and dishonorable discharge for stealing sugar and red beans may appear to have been too severe. However four previous convictions were considered during the court-martial proceedings. Accordingly, the Board finds that his contentions are not sufficiently mitigating when compared to his overall undistinguished character of service.
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
__mmd__ __rwa___ _clg_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002070733 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/08/20 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | DD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1945/02/16 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 713 | 144.7110. |
| 2. 715 | 144.7200 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000106
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. On 31 July 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board reviewed his discharge and changed it to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. The conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026991
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 26 May 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100026991 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's military records show he served honorably in the Regular Army (RA) from 27 June 1975 to 15 February 1978 and from 16 February 1978 to 16 November 1980. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-10, provides that a Soldier will be given a dishonorable discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general court-martial, after completion of appellate review...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007534
On 27 April 1984, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-10, as the result of a court-martial. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-10, provides that a Soldier will be given a dishonorable discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general court-martial, after completion of appellate review and after such affirmed sentence was ordered duly executed. __________X ___ CHAIRPERSON I...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087643C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant was released from confinement and returned to duty on 27 April 1946, went AWOL on 20 May 1946 from Camp Atterbury and returned on 6 November 1946. On 31 July 2002 the National Personnel Records Center prepared a Certification of Military Service showing that the applicant was a member of the Regular Army from 10 July 1941 until 3 January 1946 and that he was...
On 11 September 1952, the Air Force Board of Review set aside the findings of guilty of Charge II and all specifications thereunder and affirmed the sentence as modified to provide for a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and confinement at hard labor for 1 year and 6 months. He was sentenced to a dishonorable discharge and one year and 6 months’ confinement. We therefore conclude that no basis exists to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s request.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009109C080410
The court sentenced the applicant to 60 days restriction and a forfeiture of $15.00. On 14 July 1948, the applicant was dishonorably discharged, under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-364, Sentences of Court-Martial. Army Regulation 615-364 (Enlisted Personnel) in effect at the time, provided that an enlisted person would be dishonorably discharged pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000936C070205
The available records indicate that the applicant was approved for a waiver of lost time on 31 March 1948, to enlist in the Army. Army Regulation 615-364, then in effect, set forth the conditions under which enlisted personnel could be discharged with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge. Title 10, United Stated Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, provides, in pertinent part, that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records is not empowered to set aside...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100006905
The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062412C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 25 February 1955, he was dishonorably discharged pursuant to the sentence of a general court-martial. He asserted that it was never proven that the camera he was accused of stealing was the property of the other soldier and that if the record of trial was reviewed, it would show that he was right.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070014997
The applicant requests that his dishonorable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. A loss of this amount of time due to either absence without leave or confinement is serious and there is insufficient evidence to show that the applicant now deserves an upgrade of his dishonorable discharge. In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his dishonorable discharge to a general or an honorable discharge.