| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa M. Chandler | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded a general discharge under honorable conditions.
APPLICANT STATES: That he had a chemical dependency problem; that at the time that he committed the offense for which he was separated, he was under the influence of alcohol which impaired his ability to think; and that he requested help for his alcohol problem, but was told there was no help available at the time. He also states that he has been sober for over 25 years; that he has educated himself; that he is a counselor; that he works in his community and wishes to work with veterans with chemical dependency problems. The applicant submits in support of his request an Alcohol and Drug Counselor Certification; a Diploma for completion of the Small Business Management Course; and an Associate in Science Degree from Minneapolis Community College; a Bachelor of Arts Degree from Metropolitan State University; and seven letters that he has received from various schools and organizations that attest to his use of good judgment concerning his personal life, his commitment to helping others, and his professionalism.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military record was reconstructed and the record is very limited. The evidence available indicates that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 February 1958 for a period of 3 years.
While he was stationed in Germany in 1959, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant and a fellow soldier for unlawfully breaking and entering the shop of a German National with the intent to commit larceny, and of acting jointly in stealing four cameras and one tripod, of a value of about $59.00, the property of a German National, on 1 April 1959.
Before a general court-martial on 27 May 1959, the applicant pled guilty to both offenses and was convicted of both offenses. He was sentenced to reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1, confinement at hard labor for 1 year, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and to be discharged with a dishonorable discharge (DD). The applicant had one previous summary court-martial conviction for being absent without leave (AWOL). The dates of the AWOL are unknown and the summary court-martial order is not contained in the available record.
On 29 September 1959, the United States Court of Military Review affirmed the findings and approved the sentence except for that portion of the sentence providing for a DD. The appropriate authority ordered a BCD to be duly executed and the applicant's record contains an NA Form 13038 (United States of America Certification of Military Service) that shows he was separated on 22 October 1959 with a BCD.
In 1975, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. The ADRB returned his case without action due to insufficient records; however, he was not eligible for an ADRB review because of his court-martial conviction.
Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judiciary process. In accordance with Title 10, United States Code, Section
1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records is empowered to change the severity of the sentence imposed in the court-martial process 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. 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.
2. Although the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's discharge process are missing, the available evidence indicates that he was separated as a result of a general court-martial conviction with a BCD. The Board presumes regularity in the discharge process. The applicant has provided no information that would indicate the contrary.
3. Additionally, there is no evidence available to indicate that personal problems or alcohol contributed to the applicant's actions. Even if true, he had many other legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance with his personal problems without committing the offenses that led to his separation.
4. The Board commends the applicant for his accomplishments since departing the military. However, post service accomplishments alone do not provide the Board a basis to grant clemency.
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
__lls___ __bje___ __wdp___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002075056 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021217 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (BCD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19591022 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A68.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.6800 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014659
He was convicted of the wrong crime as it relates to the assault, although he admits to being guilty of conspiracy to assault. Personnel acting as Military Police are one of these special categories by virtue of the fact that it is their job to enforce the law. The applicant contends that drugs and or alcohol were factors in the offenses; however, the record contains no documentation to support that the applicant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time he committed the acts.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8309508
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. In support of his application he submits about a dozen letters of support and training indicating his work with the American Indian Chemical Dependency Programs in Minnesota. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010310
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. Accordingly, his punishment was not disproportionate to the offenses for which he was convicted and he has failed to show sufficient evidence or reasons to warrant an upgrade of his discharge based on clemency. As a result, clemency is not warranted in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061848C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 20 August 1998, the Army Discharge Review Board unanimously voted to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge. The Board also notes that the applicant’s counsel has proven that the applicant fraudulently enlisted, an offense that in and of itself could result in an under other than honorable conditions discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605820C070209
APPLICANT STATES: That his BCD was unfair because his family problems, drug and alcohol abuse, his age and his otherwise good record in the Army were not taken into account. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: He enlisted in the Regular Army at age 17 for 3 years on 29 December 1976 and was discharged with a BCD on 29 May 1979 pursuant to the sentence of a special court-martial. The Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for upgrade of his discharge on 24...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011102
The evidence of record shows the applicant was screened for a drug and substance abuse program on 31 March 2003, almost a year prior to his deployment to Kuwait/Iraq on 19 March 2004. There is no evidence and he has not provided any evidence to show that PTSD caused his misconduct or that he was diagnosed with PTSD while he was in the military. The conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and the discharge appropriately characterizes the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089810C070403
The applicant’s military records are not available to the Board for review. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should commence on the date of final...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078823C070215
He completed 2 years, 11 months and 2 days of total active service and he had approximately 84 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement. On 18 February 1963, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. However, there is no evidence of record that shows that he was an alcoholic while he was in the Army.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017434
On 29 March 1985, the United States Army Court of Military Review considered the record of trial in the applicant's case. At issue before the Court was whether the military judge erred by considering, during sentencing, portions of a record of trial from a prior general court-martial of the applicant. The applicant contends that his dishonorable discharge should be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions because he was introduced to drugs and alcohol by Soldiers...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002895
Counsel cites an ABCMR docket number wherein it was noted "applicant had been a good citizen and discharge upgraded to a general discharge" and an Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) docket number wherein it was noted "outstanding post-service accomplishments in academics warranted an upgrade to a general discharge" as precedents for granting relief in the applicant's case. For that reason the Board found the applicant's punishment to be too harsh compared to the punishment the other Soldier...