| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member | ||
| Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin | Member |
2. The applicant requests, in effect, that his dishonorable discharge (DD) be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).
3. The applicant states, in effect, that he went absent without leave (AWOL) after being treated unfairly by his commanding officer. He claims that he has paid his debt for going AWOL, and that he received a bad conduct discharge (BCD), but was instead issued a DD certificate. He further states that his going AWOL was wrong, but his receiving DD certificate was a mistake. In support of his application, he submits a copy of his Certification of Military Service (NA Form 13038), published by the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), St. Louis, Missouri, dated
18 October 2001.
4. The applicant's military records were lost or destroyed in a fire at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) in 1973. The information herein was gleaned from a copy of NA Form 13038, dated 18 October 2001, published by the NPRC, NARA, and the record of trial by general court-martial, dated 27 August 1958.
5. The NA Form 13038 confirmed that the applicant entered the Regular Army on 16 July 1956, and that he continuously served on active duty until being dishonorably discharged on 11 September 1958. This document also shows that on the date of his discharge, the applicant held the rank and pay grade of private/E-1.
6. On 27 August 1958, the applicant plead guilty to being AWOL from
28 January 1958 to 6 July 1958. He was found guilty of this offense by a general court-martial and the resultant sentence included a forfeiture of all pay and allowances, a reduction to the rank and pay grade of private/E-1, confinement for one year, and a DD. On 11 September 1958, the convening authority approved the sentence with a modification of the DD to BCD, confinement from one year to ten months, and ordered all but the BCD portion of the sentence to be executed.
7. The applicant appealed to the United States Army Board of Review based on the grounds that the approved sentence was too harsh and excessive. On
6 November 1958, the United States Army Board of Review examined the record of trial and found it to be legally sufficient to support the findings of guilty and approved only so much of the sentence that provided for a BCD, total forfeitures of pay and allowances, and confinement at hard labor for six months.
8. On 29 December 1958, the unexecuted portion of the sentence pertaining to the BCD was ordered executed, and on 11 September 1958, the applicant was separated accordingly.
9. Title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552 as amended does not permit any redress by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) of the finality of a court-martial conviction and empowers the ABCMR to only change a discharge if clemency is determined to be appropriate.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The Board notes the contention of the applicant that his discharge should be upgraded because the reason he went AWOL was the unfair treatment of his commander, and that he has paid his debt for this offense by completing the confinement ordered in his general court-martial sentence. However, the Board finds these factors are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.
2. By law, any redress by this Board of the finality of a court-martial conviction is prohibited. The Board is only empowered to change a discharge if clemency is determined to be appropriate to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. However, in this case, the Board finds the evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and that his trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offense with which he was charged.
3. Notwithstanding the applicant’s contentions and desires, the Board finds that the type of discharge received by the applicant subsequent to his appeal appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted and accurately reflects his overall record of service. Therefore, the Board concludes that clemency is not warranted in this case.
4. The evidence of record does confirm that the applicant ultimately received a BCD, as indicated in the court-martial record, and that his separation document incorrectly lists the type of discharge as a DD. Therefore, the Board finds it would be appropriate to issue the applicant a corrected NA Form 13038 that shows the applicant received a BCD, in lieu of the DD listed in this document.
5. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing the individual concerned received a BCD on 11 September 1958, in lieu of the DD of the same date he now holds; and by requesting NARA issue him a corrected NA Form 13038 that reflects this change.
2. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.
BOARD VOTE:
__RVO__ __RTD__ __KWL__ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
___Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.___
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2002070855 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/07/25 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | BCD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19580911 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | GCM |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | Partial Relief |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 105.0100 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068221C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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: However, in this case, the Board finds the evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021178
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 July 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130021178 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's complete military records are not available to the Board for review. His conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations and his discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001066269C070421
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015082
BOARD DATE: 1 May 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110015082 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests correction of his record to show he received a general discharge (GD). The applicant's complete military records are not available for review.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078721C070215
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: Court-Martial Order Number 17, published by Headquarters, Fourth United States Army, dated 14 April 1958. Army Regulation 635-204 provided the policy for discharge of enlisted personnel pursuant only to approved sentences of a general court-martial empowered to impose a dishonorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088676C070403
This certificate shows the same information; the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 February 1950 and was discharged with an Bad Conduct Discharge on 10 June 1952 in the rank of Private. Army Regulation 615-364, then in effect, provided the policy for discharge of enlisted personnel pursuant only to approved sentences of a general court-martial empowered to impose a dishonorable discharge. After a thorough review of the applicant’s record, the Board found no cause for clemency and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040006627C070208
The applicant’s military records are not available to the Board for review. There is no evidence and the applicant has not provided evidence that shows the FSM's superiors made it hard on him because he was black or documentation that shows white Soldiers refused to take orders from him. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075056C070403
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 empowered to change the severity of the sentence imposed in the court-martial process only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. 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: Carl W. S....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040007163C070208
The applicant, as the wife of the deceased former service member (FSM), requests, in effect, that clemency in the form of an upgrade to his discharge be granted. When the FSM returned, he was discharged with a dishonorable discharge. The FSM’s military records are not available to the Board for review.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088840C070403
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 that his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to honorable. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations in effect at the time, and that his trial by court-martial was warranted by the...