| 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 an honorable or a general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That he would like to have his discharge upgraded because he has gotten married and would like to do better for his family and himself. He states that what happened to him while he was in the Army has made him a better person and improved his understanding of being a man. He states that he now knows that in life, he must be held accountable for his actions. He also alleges that he did not commit the crime, but was made an example because he was in charge of the office.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 2 August 1974, he enlisted in the Army in Montgomery, Alabama for 4 years in the pay grade of E-1. He remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments and was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 2 June 1981.
Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 1 February 1990, for being absent from his unit from 22 December until 26 December 1989; for disobeying a lawful order; and for dereliction of duty. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty. The forfeiture and restriction were suspended.
On 9 July 1990, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for a bar to reenlistment. The commander cited his failure to pay just debts and the NJP that was imposed against him as the basis for his recommendation. The commander indicated that he had a history of irresponsibility in both his personal and military life and that he had not set the example as a noncommissioned officer should. The applicant submitted an appeal to his bar to reenlistment on 20 July 1990, however his appeal was denied. Accordingly, on 26 September 1990, he was barred from reenlistment.
On 22 January 1992, the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial of dereliction of duty, larceny in the amount of $19,100.00 and forgery of a check in the amount of $19,100.00. He was sentenced to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for 3½ years, reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and a forfeiture of all pay and allowances.
On 8 June 1992, the convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged and except for the part of the sentence extending to a dishonorable discharge, the sentence was executed.
On 16 September 1993, the United States Army Court of Military Review affirmed only so much of the sentence as provided for dishonorable discharge, confinement for 42 months, reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and forfeiture of all pay and allowances with the explanation that a sentence to confinement should be adjudged in full days, months or years and fractions should not be employed.
Accordingly, he was dishonorably discharged pursuant to a court-martial conviction on 7 October 1994, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 3-10. He had completed 17 years, 5 months and 20 days of total active service.
The Board’s authorizing legislation, 10 United States Code 1552, specifically paragraph (f), allows the Board, with respect to court-martial records, to correct the record to reflect actions taken by reviewing authorities or to take action on the sentence for purposes of clemency. The Board does not have the authority to affect the finality of court-martial convictions adjudged or reviewed under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.
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 misconduct for which the applicant was convicted.
3. The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions. While the Board is empathetic to the applicant's personal situation, that in itself is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge when considering the seriousness of his offenses and his otherwise undistinguished record of service.
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
__mmd__ ___rwa__ ___clg___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002071037 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/08/20 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | DD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19941007 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, ch 3-10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | 144.7100 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 715 | 144.7200 |
| 2. 723 | 144.7510 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020380
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 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. The applicant's contentions and supporting documents have been noted; however, he did not provide sufficient evidence to warrant an upgrade of his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021479
The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged as a result of court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separations), paragraph 3-10, with a dishonorable characterization of service. His conviction, confinement, and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and his discharge appropriately characterized the misconduct for which he was convicted....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007637
On 21 June 1990, a U.S. Army Court of Military Review noted that prior to his GCM, the applicant had been punished under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ for two of the many offenses for which he was convicted by court-martial; specifically Charges I and II. This form also shows his character of service as "Dishonorable." _______ _ X ______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140004295
Headquarters, U.S. Army Correctional Brigade, Fort Riley, KS, General Court-Martial Order Number 475, dated 15 August 1990, shows that after completion of all required post-trial and appellate reviews the convening authority ordered the applicant's dishonorable discharge sentence executed. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 5 September 1990. The conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and the discharge appropriately characterizes...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01656
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01656 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His dishonorable discharge be upgraded to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). He did not report for duty for the next three days. Because his approved sentence included a dishonorable discharge, the applicant’s convictions were...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001599
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his dishonorable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 29 March 1996, the Staff Judge Advocate, in a written review for the convening authority, summarized the charges, specifications, pleas, findings, and sentence.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140020431
The applicant states he has learned from his mistakes and is now a better person as a result of his self-examination. Although he admits that he made a horrible mistake, his awards and his post-service efforts toward self-improvement are insufficient as a basis to grant him clemency or an upgrade of his discharge. The evidence of record does not indicate the actions taken in this case were in error or unjust.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014857
There is no conclusive evidence in the applicants records that the separation authority approved his request for discharge in lieu of court-martial. This form further shows the applicant's character of service as dishonorable and that he completed a total of 11 years and 3 months of creditable military service and had 200 days of lost time. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100023721
The applicant requests that his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general under honorable conditions. In accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the ABCMR is not empowered to set aside a conviction. For this charge alone, he could have received a DD, 5 years of confinement, and total forfeiture of all pay and allowances.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021339
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 May 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110021339 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. In approving the adjudged sentence, the convening authority ordered that "except for the part of the sentence extending to the BCD will be executed." The applicant contends that her BCD should be upgraded to an honorable discharge because her discharge is unjust.