| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Ms. Melinda M. Darby | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.
APPLICANT STATES: That he should have been given the opportunity to reenlist so that he would have been able to receive an honorable discharge. He completed more than 5 years of honorable service. He was young and dumb and has regretted his actions every day since. He has been a productive citizen all of his adult life. He provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 28 May 1954 in support of his application.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records were lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973. Information herein was obtained from the record of his trial by court-martial and from reconstructed personnel records.
On 11 July 1949, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years and was involuntarily extended for an additional year under Public Law Number 51. He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 1824 (Cook). He served overseas (Korea and Japan) for a period of 1 year, 7 months and 25 days.
On 29 August 1950, he was convicted by a Special Court Martial (SPCM) of being absent without leave (AWOL) for the periods 16 May to 13 June 1950 and 26 June to 12 July 1950. His approved sentence was confinement at hard labor (CHL) for 80 days, forfeiture of $44 pay per month for 3 months and reduction to pay grade E-1.
On 16 November 1950, he was convicted by a Summary Court Martial (SCM) of being AWOL for the period 30 October to 15 November 1950. His approved sentence was restriction for 30 days and forfeiture of $52 pay.
On 29 January 1951, he was convicted by a SPCM of being AWOL for the period 21 December 1950 to 17 January 1951. His approved sentence was CHL for 2 months and 21 days and forfeiture of $45 pay per month for 3 months.
On 26 April 1952, he was convicted by a SCM of being AWOL on 15 April 1952. His approved sentence included hard labor without confinement for 30 days and a forfeiture of $65 pay.
On 27 June 1952, he was convicted by a SPCM of being AWOL for the period 30 to 31 May 1952. His approved sentence included CHL for 3 months and a forfeiture of $55 pay per month for 3 months.
On 8 June 1953, in consonance with his plea of guilty, he was convicted by SPCM of being AWOL for the period 17 to 20 May 1953. His approved sentence included CHL for 6 months and forfeiture of $55 pay per month for 6 months.
On 3 March 1954, DD Form 502 (Prisoner Personnel History Record) shows that he left school at age 18 based on graduation.
On 15 March 1954, he was convicted by a General Court Martial (GCM) of being AWOL for the period 8 to 28 February 1954. His approved sentence included a BCD, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and CHL for 3 months. There were six previous convictions considered. His BCD was suspended until completion of his CHL or completion of the appellant review.
On 30 March 1954, a U. S. Army Board of Review found the findings of guilty and the sentence as approved by proper authority correct in law and fact and affirmed the findings of guilty and sentence.
On 28 May 1954, he was discharged in pay grade E-1 under Army Regulation 615-364. His DD Form 214 indicates that he had 3 years and 28 days of creditable service and 655 days of lost time.
Army Regulation 615-364, then in effect, set the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel sentenced to a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge by a general court-martial, special court-martial, or military commission.
The statutory authority under which this Board was created (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. Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judiciary process. This Board is not empowered to change a discharge due to matters which should have been raised in the appellate process, rather it is only empowered to change the severity of the sentence imposed in the court-martial process and then only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed.
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 GCM was warranted by the gravity of the offense charged and the applicant’s previous courts-martial convictions. 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 applicant’s contentions that he has been a productive adult are noteworthy, but not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.
3. The applicant's contention that he was young and dumb at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief. The Board notes that the applicant was 22 years of age at the time of his GCM.
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 | AR2002071187 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020820 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058067C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, reconsideration of his request for an upgrade of his dishonorable discharge (DD) which this Board denied on 27 February 1974. He was sentenced to a forfeiture of all pay and allowances, CHL for 7 years and to be discharged from service with a DD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072845C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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. There is nothing in the available records to support the applicant’s contention that he was eligible for a hardship discharge and was not provided assistance.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004576C070205
The applicant requests, in effect, that clemency be granted in the form of an honorable discharge or a pardon. The Army Board for Correction of Military Records is not empowered to grant service member’s pardons for convictions by a general or special court-martial. The Army Board for Correction of Military Records has no authority to grant the applicant’s request for a pardon.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8109128
On 18 September 1956, a member of Congress, who had submitted a request for reconsideration on the applicant’s behalf, was advised by the Executive Secretary of the Board that the regulations governing the Board’s operation provide that it could deny an application without a hearing if it determined that insufficient evidence had been presented to indicate probable material error or injustice; that, under such regulations, the Board had reconsidered the application and the information...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051941C070420
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. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006926
One previous conviction was considered. On 18 March 1954, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-364 (Enlisted Personnel Discharge Dishonorable and Bad Conduct), by reason of court-martial, and he received a DD. As a result, neither his overall record of service or post-service conduct support clemency in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607857C070209
He was convicted by three summary courts-martial, one special court-martial, and one general court-martial. All of his convictions appear to have been for different offenses. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION Loren G. Harrell Director INDEX CASE ID AR1998012413 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 1999/02/18 TYPE OF DISCHARGE BCD DATE OF DISCHARGE 1954/11/18 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR615-364 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 | CY2014 | 20140007871
His conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the type of discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted. His record of service included three summary court-martial convictions, two special court-martial convictions, and 404 days of lost time. Therefore, his record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an upgraded discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001642
He departed the continental United States on 30 October 1952 and he arrived in Japan on 14 November 1952 and Korea on 16 July 1953. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. The applicants record of service included two prior court-martial convictions.