| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Thomas A. Pagan | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | ||
| Mr. John A. Kelly | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the errors in his general court-martial (GCM) record of trial be corrected and that his sentence be changed accordingly.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he is applying for correction to all his records showing a valid legal court-martial conviction. He states that he believes that this Board has the authority to correct the errors in his trial record pursuant to the clemency authority it is granted on behalf of the Secretary of the Army in Title 10 of the Untied States Code, section 1552 (10 USC 1552). The applicant further states that he is also addressing these issues through the appellate process to the Army Court of Review. In support of his application, he provides the enclosed self-authored petition for relief outlining the history of his case, the relief he seeks, and the reasons he believes relief should be granted.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 26 March 1991, the applicant entered active duty in the Regular Army for
3 years. He completed One Station Unit Training (OSUT) at Fort Benning, Georgia, and he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).
On 29 October 1993, while serving at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, the applicant reenlisted for 3 additional years. His Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) shows that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist/E-4 (SPC/E-4), and it documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.
On 5 December 1995, the applicant was convicted of the following offenses that occurred on or about 23 July 1995 by a GCM: forcible oral sodomy; forcible anal sodomy; assault consummated by battery; breaking and entering, with intent to commit the offense of larceny; and wrongfully communicating a threat. The resultant sentence included a reduction to private/E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 50 years, and a dishonorable discharge.
The GCM was promulgated in GCM Order Number 4, dated 16 February 1996, issued by Headquarters, 2nd Infantry Division, Korea. This order shows that the GCM convening authority approved only so much of the sentence that provided for reduction to private/E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for
28 years, and a dishonorable discharge; and that he directed that the sentence be executed except for that part extending to a dishonorable discharge.
GCM Order Number 50, dated 3 June 1998, issued by the United States Disciplinary Barracks, U.S. Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth,
In addition, as a matter of comity, the jurisdiction of this Board to review a conviction for clemency purposes does not commence until the jurisdiction of the Army Clemency and Parole Board expires. Both Boards act directly for the Secretary of the Army on matters of clemency. Unlike other boards, this Board’s authority in clemency is not a form of appellate review of the clemency authority of the Army Clemency and Parole Board. The Army Clemency and Parole Board has continuing jurisdiction for clemency matters from the time of the convening authority’s action until the inmate’s completion of sentence. Upon completion of the inmate’s sentence, jurisdiction for clemency is transferred to this Board.
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, verified that the applicant’s sentence had been finally affirmed and ordered that, Article 71(c) having been complied with, the dishonorable discharge be executed. On 26 June 1998, the applicant was discharged accordingly.
The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant upon his discharge confirms that he completed a total of 4 years, 3 months, and 27 days of creditable active military service, and that he accrued 1064 days of time lost. It also confirms that he received a dishonorable discharge under the provisions of chapter 3, Army Regulation 635-200, as a result of court-martial.
Chapter 47 of Title 10 of the United States Code contains the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Subchapter IX provides guidance on post trial procedure and review of courts-martial, and it contains an index of the sections of the law that outline authorized court-martial review authorities.
10 USC 876 (Article 71 of the UCMJ) contains the legal guidance on the finality of court-martial proceedings, findings, and sentences. It states that the appellate review of records of trial provided by this chapter, the proceedings, findings, and sentences of courts-martial as approved, reviewed, or affirmed as required by this chapter, and all dismissals and discharges carried into execution under sentences by courts-martial following approval, review, or affirmation as required by this chapter, are final and conclusive. Orders publishing the proceedings of
courts-martial and all action taken pursuant to those proceedings are binding upon all departments, courts, agencies, and officers of the United States, subject only to action upon a petition for a new trial as provided in section 873 of this title (Article 73) and to action by the Secretary concerned as provided in section 874 of this title (Article 74) and the authority of the President.
10 USC 1552, section 1552, provides the legal authority for the correction of military record and governs the operation of this Board acting on behalf of the Secretary of the Army. It states, in effect, that the Board may not disturb the finality of a court-martial, and that its correction authority is limited to the implementation of actions directed by the reviewing authorities identified in chapter 47 (UCMJ) of this title; or to action on the sentence of a court-martial for purposes of granting clemency.
1. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that this Board has the legal authority to correct errors in his court-martial trial record that are found during its clemency review. However, although the Board has been delegated the authority to correct military records on behalf of the Secretary of the Army in accordance with 10 USC 1552, this law does not empower it to disturb the finality of a court-martial sentence. The law only allows the Board to implement records corrections directed by a legally defined court-martial review authority, or to grant clemency.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses with which he was charged. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the applicant’s self-authored petition provides no independent evidence to the contrary. Absent a directive that requires a records correction from a properly designated court-martial review authority, the Board finds no basis to grant the requested relief.
3. Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, that may be used to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. In this case, the Army Clemency and Parole Board has continuing jurisdiction for clemency matters until the applicant completes his sentence. Until the applicant completes his sentence, his other administrative remedies have not been exhausted. When he completes his sentence, clemency jurisdiction will formally transfer to this Board. Therefore, the Board concludes that it would be premature to exercise its clemency jurisdiction in this case at this time.
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
__TAP__ __RWA _ __ JAK__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002078347 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/03/13 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | DD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1998/06/26 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C3 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Court-Martial |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 30 | 105.0000 |
| 2. 281 | 126.0400 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01599
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01599 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His dishonorable discharge be upgraded. The applicant was dishonorably discharged effective 14 December 2009 after serving eight years, seven months, and seven days on active duty. The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01667
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01667 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be allowed a waiver of the minimum retirement time in service and granted special retirement to support his family or be allowed entry into the Return to Duty Program (RTDP). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084294C070212
The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 October 1994 for 3 years. Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1552(f) states that, with respect to records of courts-martial tried or reviewed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Board's action may extend only to action on the sentence of a court-martial for purposes of clemency. The Board notes that the applicant was never sentenced to 8 years confinement.
She has been in confinement over 6 years and the USDB still does not know how to compute her sentence to confinement or her good conduct time. Before she reaches her minimum release date, she will be considered at least 2 more times for clemency and parole. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The applicant disagreed with AFLSA/JAJR’s statement concerning the reason she was denied elevation to trustee status,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011008
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 November 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100011008 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with a bad conduct discharge on 4 December 2006 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 3, as a result of a court-martial. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040008170C070208
This action was in accordance with Article 71b, UCMJ (Title 10 U.S. Code 871); (e) The applicant’s application contains no evidence that he had requested voluntary excess leave as stated on his DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), block 6; and (f) The applicant’s application included a two-page memorandum requesting a waiver to Army Regulation 190-47. While the REFRAD order was not a discharge or dismissal, it had the effect of preventing him from going on appellate...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05042
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicants request to set aside her GCM conviction, as it pertains to Charge I, making a false official statement, and its specifications. Further, we believe the applicants record should be corrected to show that on 3 February 2011, the date after she was released from MSR until 6 September 2013, the date the AFCCA affirmed the findings and sentence, she was on appellate leave without pay and points. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120016637
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). He believes his discharge is inequitable because it was based on a single isolated incident that occurred after 17 years of honorable service. Sentence: 7 years.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018779
The applicant requests upgrade of his bad conduct discharge (BCD) to a general under honorable conditions discharge. The part of the finding of Charge II stating "by force and without consent of the Sergeant [T]" and the sentence were set aside. However, his first term of service conduct and achievements alone are not a basis for upgrading a discharge on a second enlistment and, upon review, his conduct and achievements are not sufficient to mitigate his indiscipline in the Regular Army.