| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | ||
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was young and unaware of the mistake he was making when he was 17 years old, and he regrets making it. He indicates that he has grown sons now and has been married for 26 years. He finished his high school equivalency and has earned 31 hours of college course credit. He has owned his own business for nine years and has a grand daughter. He would now like to get his discharge changed before his time is up here on Earth. He hopes this can be done after all these years. He concludes that he has worked hard to be a good person and dad, as well as a husband to his wonderful wife, and the Board’s help in this matter would be greatly appreciated.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The Board considered and denied the applicant’s original request for an upgrade of his BCD on 15 June 1977. This Board action was taken prior to a change in the law that requires the Board to publish written proceedings of its findings. In the absence of a written case summary of the original deliberations in this case, the Board has determined that it would be appropriate in this case to conduct a “de novo” review based on this latest application.
On 12 July 1965, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He was trained and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 67A (Aircraft Maintenance Crewmember), and the highest rank he attained during his active duty tenure was private/E-2.
The applicant’s record reveals no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition. However it does contain a disciplinary history that includes an extensive history of absence without leave (AWOL) related misconduct and his conviction by a general court-martial.
A Review of the Staff Judge Advocate (FH Form 842) completed by the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA), III Corps and Fort Hood, Fort Hood, Texas, dated 26 May 1967, confirms that on 6 June 1966, the applicant was convicted by a
special court-martial of being AWOL for the following periods: 13 through
15 December 1965; 15 December 1965 through 3 January 1966; and 20 January 1966 through 21 March 1966.
On 17 April 1967, the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial of being AWOL from on or about 8 June 1966 to on or about 10 February 1967. The court considered a previous special court-martial conviction for the three unauthorized absences mentioned previously, which resulted in four months confinement and forfeiture of $58.00 per month for 4 months. The resultant sentence included a forfeiture of $50.00 pay per month for 6 months pay, confinement at hard labor for 6 months, and a BCD. On 26 May 1967, the convening authority approved the sentence and ordered all but the BCD portion to be executed.
On 20 June 1967, the United States Army Board of Review, United States Army Judiciary, examined the record of trial and found it to be legally sufficient to support the findings of guilty and the sentence, and it affirmed the conviction. On 28 June 1967, the unexecuted portion of the sentence pertaining to the BCD was ordered executed, and on 30 June 1967, the applicant was discharged accordingly. At the time of his discharge, the applicant had completed 5 months and 9 days of creditable active military service and had accrued 547 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
Title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552, as amended, does not permit any redress by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) of the finality of a court-martial conviction and empowers the ABCMR to only change a discharge if clemency is determined to be appropriate.
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 Board notes the applicant’s contention that his discharge should be upgraded because his youth and immaturity contributed to his misconduct and based on his post service conduct and accomplishments. However, the Board finds these factors are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant clemency.
2. By law, any redress by this Board of the finality of a court-martial conviction is prohibited. The Board is only empowered to change a discharge if clemency is determined to be appropriate to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations in effect at the time, and that his trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses with which he was charged.
3. Notwithstanding the applicant’s contentions and desires, the Board finds that the applicant’s discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted, and accurately reflects his overall undistinguished record of service. Therefore, it finds there is an insufficient basis to grant clemency in this case.
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
__RJW__ __RWA__ __JTM__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002075512 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/10/10 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | BCD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1967/06/30 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-204 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Trail By Court-Martial |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 144.9301 | 105.0100 |
| 2. 144.9221 | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009412
The applicant requests that his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general under honorable conditions discharge (GD). The applicant's DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he served in the ROK from 13 October 1965 through 12 November 1966 and in the RVN from 20 December 1966 through 19 December 1967. The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant upon his discharge on 15 July 1970 shows he was separated under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005706
The applicant was discharged on 24 June 1968, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-204, with a BCD. He was discharged pursuant to the sentence of a general court-martial and was issued a BCD after the sentence was affirmed. A BCD is adjudged by a court-martial when it determines a Soldier should be separated under conditions of dishonor after conviction of serious offenses of a civil or military nature warranting such severe punishment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003858
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 November 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140003858 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070011737C080407
Jerome L. Pionk | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. However, his three months of service in the Dominican Republic while assigned to Fort Bragg is already a matter of record in documents on file in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and is supported by his having been awarded the AFEM for this service. As a result, even though he completed a tour of duty in the RVN and served in the Dominican...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016599
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 February 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110016599 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020220
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 May 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120020220 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. The applicant states that he had issues and a hard time adjusting to the military after his service in Vietnam.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056960C070420
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 2 February 1968, a United States Army Board of Review found the GCM findings of guilty and sentence as approved by proper authority in the applicant’s case correct in law and fact. Further, the BCD portion of the sentence was not effected until he had been afforded all legal appeals and the findings and sentence were finally affirmed by a United States Army Board of Review.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004686
Article 90, on or about 6 January 1967, by lifting a weapon, a broken broom stick, against a Lieutenant Colonel C----y, a superior commissioned officer in the execution of his duties; c. Article 92, on or about 23 December 1966, by failing to obey a lawful order issued by a specialist four, who was then performing duties as a guard at the Fort Carson Post Stockade; and d. Article 85, on or about 28 December 1965, by being AWOL from his basic combat training unit with the intent to remain...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010228
On 22 December 1969, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. There is no evidence in the applicant's records that his discharge was upgraded or that he was granted clemency.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012002
On 29 September 1967, the applicant was discharged accordingly. 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 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. ...