| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. JoAnn H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Melinda M. Darby | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his dishonorable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: The applicant has offered no argument or evidence in support of his request for an upgrade of his discharge.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in Los Angeles, California, on 28 February 1989 for a period of 3 years and 14 weeks, training as an infantryman and assignment under the Cohort Enlistment Program. He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Alaska. He reenlisted in the pay grade of E-4 on 18 November 1991, for a period of 3 years.
On 1 February 1993, while assigned to Fort Ord, California, he was promoted to the pay grade of E-5. On 14 June 94, while assigned to Fort Lewis, Washington, he reenlisted for a period of 4 years under the Army Ranger Reenlistment Option and payment of a selective reenlistment bonus.
On 22 February 1995, the applicant plead guilty to all charges and was convicted by a general court-martial of a charge consisting of six specifications of larceny of personal property and two specifications of wrongful appropriation of personal property, a charge consisting of four specifications of forgery and two specifications of wrongfully making a check with intent to deceive, and a charge of wrongful solicitation. He was sentenced to a dishonorable discharge, reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of $800.00 per month for 36 months and confinement for 36 months. The convening authority approved the sentence; however, he suspended that portion of the sentence that pertained to confinement for 36 months and directed that confinement in excess of 18 months was suspended for 24 months, unless sooner vacated. He was transferred to the Army Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, to serve his confinement.
On 14 October 1997, the Army Disciplinary Barracks published orders indicating that the applicant’s finding and sentence, as approved by the convening authority, had been affirmed and that discharge was directed.
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 14 November 1997, pursuant to a duly reviewed and affirmed court-martial conviction. He had served 7 years, 2 months and 17 days of total active service and had 548 days of lost time due to confinement.
Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, provides, in pertinent part, that the Board is not empowered to set aside a conviction. 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. 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. 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.
2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore appear to be appropriate considering the available facts of the case.
3. The applicant has offered no evidence or argument in support of his application which would suggest that his trial by court-martial was in error or unjust or that there were mitigating circumstances that should have been considered. Accordingly, after considering the available facts of the case, the Board finds no basis to warrant relief.
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
__md ___ ___jhl ___ __reb ___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002076969 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/09/19 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | DD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1997/11/14 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/3-10/gcm |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Trial by cm |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 675 | 144.6800/a68.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006890
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 January 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090006890 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his dismissal from the service be changed to reflect that he was honorably discharged. He enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 5 April 1974 and served until he was honorably discharged in the pay grade of E-7 on 6 December 1976 to accept a direct commission as a first lieutenant in the USAR.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100006905
The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019253
The applicant states that his court-martial order directed that all rights, privileges and property be restored to him after his confinement and he now desires an honorable discharge. On 22 December 1993, General Court-Martial Order Number 451 issued by the United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas set aside the finding of guilty of specification I of Charge II (failure to go to place of duty) and directed that all rights, privileges and property of which the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012370
In the alternative, he requests that this Board upgrade his dishonorable discharge to an honorable discharge, as an act of clemency. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was convicted pursuant to his guilty pleas by a general court-martial adjudged on 13 November 2001. The applicant's available military records and documentation submitted with his application and his records contain no matters upon which the Board may grant clemency and an upgrade of his dishonorable discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018561
While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of the cases and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. The applicant was convicted by a general court-martial and was sentenced to a BCD. His discharge was affirmed and he was discharged accordingly on 27 November 2001.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011526
His military record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) in pay grade E-1 on 6 November 1997. The evidence of record shows the applicant enlisted in the RA on 6 November 1997. As a result, clemency is not warranted in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080001710
m. Department of Veterans Affairs Rating Decision letter, dated 31 July 2007. n. DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), dated 8 January 2007. o. Surgical Pathology Report, dated 23 December 2004, Naval Medical Center, San Diego, California. On 10 March 2005, the Army Clemency and Parole Board upgraded the applicant's Dishonorable Discharge to a Bad Conduct Discharge, granted her 11 days of clemency in lieu of work abatement, and ordered her $9,700.00 fine...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130006244
The applicant states his records are correct; however, he's trying to get his discharge upgraded and he was informed he needed to send his request to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) since it's been over 15 years since he was discharged. On 14 April 1969, the U.S. Army Court of Military Review reviewed the applicant's court-martial proceedings, set aside the convening authority's order of confinement, and otherwise affirmed the approved findings and sentence. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070017328
On 12 June 1975, in a pretrial agreement, the applicant agreed to plead guilty to both charges provided that the convening authority approved a sentence of no more than a bad conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for 2 years, total forfeitures and reduction to pay grade E-1; and that charge two which set forth other offenses was dismissed upon the court's acceptance of the applicant's guilty plea to the charges. On 14 August 1975, the Staff Judge Advocate, in a written review for the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084737C070212
The convening authority approved the sentence on 28 August; but the execution thereof was suspended until he was released from confinement. This regulation provides that a soldier will be given a dishonorable discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general court-martial empowered to impose a dishonorable discharge. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and...