| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyl | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was not given proper representation by his lawyer and was not allowed to plead his case before a jury. He indicates his lawyer convinced him to plead guilty because this was his last case before leaving the Army. He indicates he served his country to the best of his ability. He was trained and served as a soldier the way he was trained. A doctor told him about two years ago that he had a kidney problem and now he is completely disabled and is asking for an upgrade because he has paid the price. Further, he indicates he once read that some people ran to Canada to avoid serving the military and were given clemency. He now needs the benefits he lost and desires consideration of his request. He provides one letter of support.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 13 July 1973, the applicant enlisted in the Army. He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 31M (Radio Relay and Carrier Attendant). He was advanced to pay grade E-3, effective 22 February 1974.
On 4 September 1974, while assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for possession of a controlled substance, marijuana. His punishment included a forfeiture of $75 pay and extra duty for 14 days. He appealed the punishment, which was denied.
On 2 April 1975, at Fort Bragg, he accepted NJP for wrongful use of marihuana. His punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of $100 pay per month for 2 months and correctional custody for 30 days. In his appeal, he stated that he thought the punishment was too severe and “the charge wasn’t proven to be sati[s]factory to his behalf”. His appeal was denied.
On 17 March 1977, while a member of Company C, UA Armor Center and Fort Knox, Fort Knox, Kentucky, his commander preferred court-martial charges against the applicant for committing an assault upon another soldier by cutting him, in the face, with a dangerous weapon, to wit: a box opener, with a razor blade on or about 12 March 1977.
On 11 April 1977, at Fort Knox, Kentucky, he accepted NJP for being absent without leave for the period 4 to 8 April 1977. His punishment included a forfeiture of $50.
On 25 April 1977, he entered into a plea agreement to have the excess of 15 months of confinement at hard labor (CHL) suspended. In this plea agreement, he indicated, “I am satisfied with the defense counsel who has been detailed to defend me.” Additionally, he indicates “This offer to plead guilty originated with me and no person or persons have made any attempt to force or coerce me into making this offer to plead guilty.”
On 18 May 1977, in consonance with his plea, the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial (GCM) of assault with a dangerous weapon (box opener, with a razor blade) by cutting another soldier in the face. His sentence included CHL for 6 months, discharge from the service with a bad conduct discharge (BCD), forfeiture of $240.00 pay per month for six months and reduction to pay grade E-1. The sentence was approved on 18 July 1977.
On 13 October 1977, a physical examination cleared the applicant for separation.
On 14 October 1977, the applicant was restored to duty pending completion of the appellate review.
On 14 October 1977, he departed on his requested excess leave pending completion of the appellate review.
On 28 February 1978, the Court of Military Review affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence.
The Court of Military Appeals denied his petition for a Grant of Review on 5 July 1978.
On 11 June 1979, he received a BCD, in pay grade E-1, based on a court-martial sentence. His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) indicates he had 2 years, 5 months and 20 days of creditable service, 159 days of lost time and 606 days of excess leave.
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. Rather it is only empowered to changed 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.
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.
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 offense charged and the applicant’s previous records of non-judicial punishment. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the sentence to discharge appropriately characterized the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted.
2. The Board concluded in this case that the applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge, and there is no basis for clemency in this 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
_INW____ _AAO____ _TL____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002072450 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020827 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 131 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074480C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The convening authority did not agree with the recommendation of the investigating officer and directed that the applicant be tried by a general court-martial. Although his accomplice ended up with a less harsh sentence than he did, the applicant was granted an upgrade of his discharge from a BCD to a general discharge by the Army Clemency and Parole Board and he has not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006411
Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center and Fort Dix, Fort Dix, NJ, Special Court-Martial Order Number 79, dated 2 November 1978, shows that, after completion of all required post-trial and appellate reviews, the convening authority ordered the applicants bad conduct discharge executed. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged in accordance with chapter 3 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) as a result of court-martial with a bad conduct discharge. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070018925
On 22 October 1976, in a pretrial agreement, the applicant agreed to plead guilty to a violation of Article 134, assault with the intent to commit robbery, provided that the convening authority approved a sentence of no more than a bad conduct discharge and confinement at hard labor for no more than 20 months, but with no agreement as to forfeitures or reductions. On 13 January 1977, the Staff Judge Advocate, in a written review for the convening authority, summarized the evidence and trial...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080019444
The applicant served in Vietnam from on or about 14 July 1969 to 2 January 1971. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008193
He believes that his 7 years of honorable service should not be included in his bad conduct discharge since his problems were only during the last 6 months of his service. The military judge found him guilty of the remaining charges and specifications and sentenced him to reduction to private, pay grade E1, total forfeitures, confinement at hard labor for 7 months, and a bad conduct discharge. Therefore, the applicant's request to be issued a DD Form 214 for his years of "good service"...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012334
The applicant requests that his dishonorable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. General Court-Martial Order Number 12, United States Army Correctional Activity, Fort Riley, Kansas, dated 10 January 1985, provided that the sentence to a dishonorable discharge, confinement at hard labor for 1 year and 3 months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to pay grade E-1, adjudged on 1 May 1984, as promulgated in General Court-Martial Order Number 45, Headquarters, 1st...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070017328
On 12 June 1975, in a pretrial agreement, the applicant agreed to plead guilty to both charges provided that the convening authority approved a sentence of no more than a bad conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for 2 years, total forfeitures and reduction to pay grade E-1; and that charge two which set forth other offenses was dismissed upon the court's acceptance of the applicant's guilty plea to the charges. On 14 August 1975, the Staff Judge Advocate, in a written review for the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002441
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. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant a general discharge or an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068098C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: 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 | CY2014 | 20140005958
Counsel states while in Europe, in October 1975, the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial that resulted in a bad conduct discharge and confinement. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Therefore, clemency in the form of an honorable or general discharge is not warranted in this case.