| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Margaret V. Thompson | Member | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a discharge that will qualify for veterans benefits.
APPLICANT STATES: The applicant offers no argument or evidence to support his request.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted with a moral waiver in Portland, Oregon, on 3 April 1990, for a period of 4 years, training as a tank turret repairer, and a cash enlistment bonus. His moral waiver was for three alcohol-related driving offenses.
He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Germany on 16 November 1990. He served briefly in Southwest Asia (SWA) in a temporary duty status with his unit during Operation Desert Storm/Shield and was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 1 March 1991.
On 22 August 1991, while stationed in Germany, charges were preferred against the applicant for wrongfully operating a motor vehicle without a valid driver’s license, for operating a motor vehicle while drunk, for the wrongful use of marijuana, for stealing a motor vehicle belonging to another soldier and for fleeing the scene of an accident.
On 3 December 1991, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In his request he indicated that he was making the request of his own free will, without coercion from anyone and that he was aware of the implications attached to his request. He also admitted that he was guilty of the charges against him or of lesser included offenses which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. The chain of command indicated that the applicant was a substandard soldier and recommended that his request be disapproved. The general court-martial convening authority disapproved his request on 19 December 1991.
On 31 December 1991, the applicant submitted an offer to plead guilty to the charges of driving without a valid license, drunken driving, wrongful appropriation of a motor vehicle, and fleeing the scene of an accident. He pled not guilty to the charge of wrongful use of marijuana. In return for his pleas, he requested that he not receive a sentence to confinement in excess of 3 months. The convening authority accepted his offer on 15 January 1992.
The applicant was convicted by a special court-martial on 22 January 1992 of violation of a lawful general regulation (driving without a license), of drunken driving, of wrongful appropriation of a motor vehicle and fleeing the scene of an accident. He was sentenced to a BCD, confinement for 3 months, a forfeiture of pay, and reduction to the pay grade of E-1.
On 24 July 1992, the United States Army Court of Military Review affirmed the findings and sentence as approved by the court-martial convening authority.
On 2 March 1993, he was discharged with a BCD, pursuant to a duly reviewed and affirmed special court-martial conviction. He had served 2 years and 8 months of total active service and had 89 days of lost time due to confinement. His awards included the Army Commendation Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon, the SWA Service Medal and the Kuwait Liberation Medal.
Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, provides, in pertinent part, that the Board is not empowered to set aside a conviction. 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 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.
2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore appear to be appropriate considering the available facts of the case.
3. The Board finds no basis in the evidence of record that is sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to the seriousness of his offenses and his overall 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
__mvt___ ____jhl__ __rtd____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002073803 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/10/17 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | BCD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1993/03/02 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | SPCM |
| DISCHARGE REASON | SPCM |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 685 | 144.6800/A68.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021859
Paragraph 3-7b of Army Regulation 635-200 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. The 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 | CY2010 | 20100020944
Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. The applicant requested and received a hearing by a board of officers. Therefore, the Board requests that ARBA CMD administratively correct the records of the individual concerned to show an under honorable conditions (general) character of service for his DD Form 214 with effective date of 10 August 2007.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080009034
After completion of advanced individual training, he was awarded MOS 91D (operating room specialist). There is no evidence which indicates the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations. There is no evidence of record which indicates the actions taken in his case were in error or unjust.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC -1991-01786-2
A copy of the Record of Proceedings is at Exhibit F. On 1 July 2000, applicant submitted an application requesting reconsideration that his discharge be upgraded. A copy of the AFBCMR letter, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. On 26 May 2004, applicant submitted an application requesting reconsideration that his discharge be upgraded at least to a general. JOE G. LINEBERGER Director Air Force Review Boards Agency AFBCMR BC-1991-01786-2 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601090
After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record Entries, Medical Record Entries, Elements of Discharge and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable. Medical Record Entries Related to Characterization of Service or Narrative Reason for Separation 20050513: Medical evaluation by Substance Abuse counselor, LT MSC, USNR. Elements of Discharge: Discharge Process: Date...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130006854
h. receiving another Company Grade Article 15 on 2 February 2011, for failing to report to his appointed place of duty on four separate occasions, failing to obey a lawful general regulation, and making a false official statement. On 6 September 2012, the separation authority, waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012697
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 23 November 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100012697 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. At the time of his offenses the applicant was 29 years of age.
ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100022413
Applicant Name: ????? On 22 September 2008, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analysts recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both...
NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00361
In the acknolwedgement letter to the Applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentay review prior to any personal appearance hearing. All punishment was suspended upon the following conditions: Good behavior for 3 years which includes no violations of class 1 or class motor vehicle laws, $290.00 fine, and shall serve 3 months in jail.960719: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707398C070209
Member The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 12 October 1993 the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of reckless driving and violation of two general regulations, i.e, consuming alcohol within 6 hours of a vehicle accident and failing to immediately notify military or civilian police of an accident. ________SIGNED________ CHAIRPERSON SFMR-RBR S: 22 March 1999 15 January 1999 MEMORANDUM FOR...