| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Linda D. Simmons | Member | |
| Mr. Frank C. Jones II | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his bad conduct discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that aside from the single court-martial action, he has not had another single black mark against him. He notes that he does not dispute his guilt but does state that he was diagnosed with a "substance dependency." He states that he understands that it is appropriate to punish soldiers but he contends that his punishment has continued because of his inability to secure a job sufficient to care for his family. He states that he has been drug and alcohol free since his discharge, is now married, and lives a stable life. He also states that he is 12 credits shy of attaining a college degree. The applicant only asks for the Board's help to clear his name so that he can achieve a better life and fight for his county again if the need arises. Beyond his self authored statement, he submits no evidence in support of his request.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He entered active duty on 20 April 1993 after initially being trained as a food service specialist in the United States Army Reserve. Following his enlistment in the Regular Army, the applicant successfully completed training as a pharmacy specialist. In October 1993, following completion of his training, he was assigned to the medical activity at Fort Campbell, Kentucky.
The applicant was promoted to pay grade E-4 on 1 October 1993 and reduced to pay grade E-3 in December 1993. The basis for the reduction in grade was not evident in available records.
In May 1995 the applicant commenced a 33 month confinement period resulting from a general court-martial in which the applicant was charged and found guilty, pursuant to his pleas, of one count of dereliction of duty between 26 July and
10 August 1994, three counts of larceny of military property, three counts of wrongful possession of drugs, four counts of makes false official statements, and three counts of altering a public record. Specifically, the applicant’s offenses included theft of approximately 820 Tylox pills (a control substance) from the military medical facility, possession of cocaine, “oxycodone,” and “methylphendiate,” and deceiving military officials by telling them that three different individuals had been duly prescribed the Tylox pills that he had stolen. He also falsified computer records to show that the individuals had been prescribed the Tylox pills. The applicant pled guilty to each of the charges.
His sentence, which was adjudged on 10 May 1995, included reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 33 months, and a dishonorable discharge.
In August 1996 the applicant was administratively paroled.
Subsequently his guilty plea regarding the three counts of altering a public record was set aside and those charges were dismissed by the Army Court of Criminal Appeals. Additionally, his dishonorable discharge was ultimately upgraded, by the Army Clemency and Parole Board to a bad conduct discharge effective,
9 September 1997, and finally affirmed.
He was placed in an excess leave status in January 1998 and on 16 April 1999 his bad conduct discharge was executed.
Prior to the applicant's court-martial action he had been award the National Defense Service Medal and Army Service Ribbon. There is no indication he was awarded any personal decorations.
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 applicant was a pharmacy specialist who abused the trust placed in him by stealing drugs from the pharmacy and then attempting to cover his theft by lying. The Board notes that trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses charged. The Board contends that his is particularly true considering the applicant’s training and position of trust. The discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted.
2. 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 that requirement.
3. The actions of the Army in this case were proper, and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.
4. While the Board does note the applicant’s contention that since his discharge he has developed a stable life and is pursuing his education and attempting to improve his employment opportunities, these issues, either in part or in whole, are insufficient to justify upgrading the applicant’s discharge.
5. There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, that his discharge was in error or unjust. He has submitted no evidence which would serve as a basis to upgrade his discharge as a matter of equity.
6. 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
__WTM _ __LDS__ ___FCJ__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002074109 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030306 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000721C070208
f. Military medical documents, dated between September 1986 and 6 January 1988, which show he complained of chronic pain in the right foot. On 9 December 1986, the applicant was evaluated for drug dependency. The available evidence does not show the applicant ever petitioned the Court of Military Appeals for grant of review.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004944
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 27 August 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090004944 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 20 March 2009. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070692C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his dishonorable discharge be upgraded to a more favorable discharge. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021606
The applicant states: * he served honorably throughout the first part of his enlistment, to include his service in training and his service in Vietnam * his troubles began after he returned from Vietnam and transferred to Fort Lee, VA, where he was unable to adjust to stateside duty * he soon received a number of Article 15's and reductions in pay grades * he "fell in with a bad bunch of guys" and was arrested for a civilian offense * he was sentenced under the Youth Corrections Act,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012940
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 April 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130012940 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. 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.
NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00860
ND02-00860 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020521, requested that the narrative reason for the discharge be changed. ]930728: Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use). "930812: BUPERS WASHINGTON DC directed the Applicant's discharge as type warranted by service record by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2009-129
This final decision, dated May 13, 2010, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, who received a discharge under other than honorable (OTH) conditions on January 29, 1992, asked the Board to correct his record by upgrading his discharge to honorable. 14 U.S. COAST GUARD, COMDTINST M1000.6, COAST GUARD PERSONNEL MANUAL (Change 27, 1986). The Board finds that the applicant has not proved that the Coast Guard committed any error or injustice in considering...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080009926
The applicant requests that his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the period ending 14 November 1997 be corrected to show he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 01H (Biological Sciences Assistant). On remand, the USACCA only affirmed so much of the sentence that provided for a bad conduct discharge and reduction to the grade and rank of PVT/E-1. The applicant's DD Form 214 with the ending period 14 November 1997 shows MOS...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02932
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02932 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 26 MARCH 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The Air Force Clemency and Parole Board considered and denied clemency for applicant on 13 July...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009122
COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: 1. Counsel cited that the alleged steroids were never forensically tested, the applicant refused to accept possession of the package, and that the applicant believed the substance he ordered was a legal form of Sustanon 250, as justification for his request. Certain facts in the case are undisputed: the applicant ordered Sustanon 250 online; the mailroom received a package for the applicant from an address in Pakistan; that package contained 115 1...