| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member | ||
| Ms. Marla J. N. Troup | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that her bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).
APPLICANT STATES: The applicant provides no comments beyond her request. However, she does submit a letter of support from her current employer, a colonel, who commands the United States Army Medical Department Activity (MEDDAC), Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. The colonel indicates that the applicant has been employed under his command for twelve months. He further comments that she exceeded all performance standards on her recent appraisal, and that she has been the recipient of numerous letters of praise by their beneficiary population. He also states that she continues to serve our country admirably as a Family Nurse Practitioner in the Medical Treatment Facility, and that she was recently recognized for her caring and compassionate service by her peers. He concludes by strongly recommending that the applicant’s discharge be upgraded.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
She entered the Regular Army on 24 June 1980, and continuously served on active duty until separated with a BCD, by reason of a court-martial conviction on 31 December 1990.
The applicant’s record shows that she was trained and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 91C (Practical Nurse) and attained the rank of staff sergeant (SSG). It further shows that during her active duty tenure she earned the following individual awards: Army Commendation Medal; Army Achievement Medal; and two Army Good Conduct Medals. There are no acts of valor or other significant achievement or service warranting special recognition documented in her record.
The applicant’s record includes a Personnel Action Form (DA Forms 4187), dated 12 July 1989, that changed the applicant’s duty status from present for duty to confined in the hands of civil authorities, effective 1150 hours, 12 July 1989. A DA Form 4187, dated 19 July 1989, changed the applicant’s duty status back to present for duty from confined by civil authorities, effective 1700 hours, 14 July 1989.
On 14 November 1989, the applicant was found guilty of the following offenses by a general court-martial (GCM): wrongfully distributing 7 grams, more or less, of marijuana, on or about 14 April 1989; wrongfully distributing 6.5 grams, more or less, of marijuana, on or about 21 April 1989; and stealing five Furosemide (Lasix) tablets, the property of the U.S. government, on or about 14 April 1989. The resultant sentence was a reduction to the grade of E-1 and a BCD.
On 30 January 1990, the Commanding General, USA Engineer Center and
Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, directed the applicant to take involuntary excess leave. He indicated that after considering the offenses of which the applicant was convicted and all the surrounding circumstances, he was personally convinced that the applicant should not remain on active duty pending the appellate review of her case. Accordingly, on 1 February 1989, the applicant was placed on excess leave.
On 11 September 1990, the United States Army Court of Military Review reviewed the applicant’s case and it held that the findings of guilty and the sentence as approved by the convening authority were correct in law and fact. Accordingly, it affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence.
On 19 December 1990, GCM Order Number 19, issued by Headquarters, United States Army Engineer Center and Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, directed that the BCD portion of the applicant ‘s sentence be executed based on the guilty findings and sentence having been finally affirmed.
On 31 December 1990, the applicant was discharged with a BCD under the provisions of chapter 3, Army Regulation 635-200, as a result of court-martial. At the time, she had completed a total of 10 years, 6 months, and 7 days of creditable active duty service.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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.
Title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552 as amended does not permit any redress by this Board of the finality of a court-martial conviction and empowers the Board 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 evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses for which she was charged. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which she was convicted.
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.
3. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s entire record of service and her post service accomplishments, as evidenced in the supporting letter provided by her employer. However, given the seriousness of the offenses for which she was convicted, the Board finds that these factors are not sufficiently meritorious or mitigating to warrant clemency in this case.
4. 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
__RVO__ __AAO _ __MJNT__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002076968 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/01/16 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | BCD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1990/12/31 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Court-Martial |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021480
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 February 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100021480 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-10, provides that a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a General or Special Court-Martial. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070002901
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 18 September 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070002901 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090446C070212
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 23 March 1994, the United States Army Court of Military Review upon consideration of the entire record, held that the findings of guilty and the sentence as approved by the GCM convening authority was correct in law and fact. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDARSUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDEDTYPE OF DISCHARGE(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)DATE OF DISCHARGEDISCHARGE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021251
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. On 21 August 1990, the applicant was discharged with a BCD, under the provisions of chapter 3, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), by reason of court-martial. The evidence of record confirms the applicant's conviction and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000352
The applicant requests an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge to honorable. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's 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. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004352
The applicant provides no additional documents with his application. He departed Germany on 6 October 1978 and was transferred to Fort Stewart on 7 November 1978. As such, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore appear to be appropriate considering the available facts of the case and there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant an upgrade of his BCD to any other characterization of service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014938
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 9 April 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140014938 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests upgrade of his dishonorable discharge to a general discharge under honorable conditions. It is likely he raised this issue during his trial and, based upon the written findings of the appellate court, quite evident he included this issue during his appeal.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000131
He was discharged from active duty in pay grade E-1 on 6 April 1990, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-10, as a result of a court-martial, and the issuance of a dishonorable discharge. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterized the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted. _______ _ x_______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014627
The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of his discharge under conditions other than honorable to a general discharge (GD) or honorable discharge (HD). The evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge under conditions other than honorable to a GD or HD. His conviction and sentence by an SPCM were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060084C070421
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 18 February 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge to general. The applicant’s contentions that unlawful actions were taken against him and that his constitutional rights were violated are not supported by the evidence of record.