| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade | Analyst |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Linda D. Simmons | Member | |
| Mr. Frank C. Jones, II | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his dishonorable discharge be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was very young and serving overseas when his misconduct occurred and that the punishment is too harsh for the amount of time he was absent without leave (AWOL).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was born on 12 August 1961 and enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 August 1979 for a period of 3 years. Following completion of all military training, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 64C, Motor Transport Operator, and was assigned to the Federal Republic of Germany as his first permanent duty assignment.
He arrived in Germany on 11 December 1979 and was assigned to B Battery, 3rd Battalion, 37th Field Artillery.
On 18 March 1980, the applicant departed his unit in an AWOL status and remained AWOL until 25 March 1980. On 31 March 1980, the applicant absented himself again from his unit and remained AWOL until 25 April 1980. On 27 April 1980, the applicant once again departed his unit AWOL and remained AWOL until 11 June 1980. On 12 June 1980, the applicant escaped from the lawful custody of a noncommissioned officer (NCO) and was AWOL until 18 June 1980.
On 20 June 1980, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for 4 specifications of being AWOL for the above periods, one specification of failing to obey a lawful order to get a haircut, one specification of escaping from lawful custody, one specification of wrongfully appropriating a 5 ton truck, valued at $14,700.00, the property of the United States Government, one specification of stealing a MGB sports car, the property of the Canadian Post Exchange Car Sales, and unlawfully making a false sworn statement that his car had been stolen.
On 1 October 1980, the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial of four specifications of AWOL, escape from custody, larceny, and making a false statement. He was sentenced to a Dishonorable Discharge, confinement at hard labor for 20 months, total forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to private/E-1. The sentence was approved on 17 December 1980.
On 22 April 1981, the Court of Military Review affirmed the sentence. On 6 July 1981, the United States Court of Military Appeals denied the applicant’s request for a grant of review.
On 12 August 1981, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 with a DD. He was credited with 7 months and 15 days of creditable military service and 144 days of lost time.
Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 11-1, provided that a soldier would be given a dishonorable discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence to a general court-martial. The appellate review must have been completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed.
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 noted the applicant’s contention that he was a young adult serving overseas when he committed his misconduct. The Board also noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. The Board further found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.
2. The Board noted the applicant’s contention that his punishment was too harsh for his misconduct. However, the Board thoroughly reviewed the applicant’s overall record of service, noting that his misconduct involved far more than simple AWOL. The Board, therefore, concluded that the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.
3. 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.
4. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was adjudged guilty by court-martial and that the convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged. Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. After a thorough review of the applicant’s record and any issues submitted, the Board found no cause for clemency.
5. 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.
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 | AR2002076388 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030306 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | DD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19810812 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, Chap 11 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.9405 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006514
The applicants record is void of any documentation indicating he submitted a formal request for and/or was denied a hardship discharge while serving on active duty. On 22 June 1981, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 11, as a result of a court-martial with a BCD. However, there is no evidence of record supporting the applicants assertion that he requested and was denied a hardship discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008082
Headquarters, U.S. Army Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, KS, General Court-Martial Order Number 138, dated 22 February 1982, shows after completion of all required post-trial and appellate reviews, the convening authority ordered the applicant's bad conduct discharge executed. The evidence of record shows the applicant served through an enlistment and two reenlistments, in various positions, within and outside of the continental United States, and attained the rank/grade of SGT/E-5,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | AR20110008211
Applicant Name: ????? Chapter 3, Section IV, establishes policy and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge; and provides that a soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial; and that the appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001966C070205
The applicant states, in effect, in his first application, dated 26 January 2006, that he was only 15 years old at the time he enlisted in the Army. This document shows his date of birth as 16 October 1961. The applicant's mother or an authorized guardian did not submit a request for his discharge within 90 days of his enlistment in accordance with the governing law and regulation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012701
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Accordingly, on 1 June 1981, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, due to frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. The available evidence does not show the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012385
There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations. The applicant's contentions, supporting documents, and letters of support have been noted; however, he did not provide sufficient evidence to warrant an upgrade of his discharge when considering the serious nature of his offense during such a short period of service. Therefore, the Board determined that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060704C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 15 April 1983, the applicant was discharged with a BCD pursuant to his sentence by general court-martial. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070017013
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 set aside a conviction. However, there is no evidence that indicates the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. As a result, there is insufficient basis to upgrade the applicant's discharge to an honorable or a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007647
The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-1, on 29 October 1976, for 4 years. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterized the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted. The applicant's available military records and documentation submitted with his application contain no matters upon which the Board may grant clemency and an upgrade of his BCD to an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013512
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant's record shows after having prior active military service he enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 March 1979. The conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted.