Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080425C070215
Original file (2002080425C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 29 May 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002080425

         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun Director
Mrs. Nancy L. Amos Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Luther L. Santiful Chairperson
Mr. Lester Echols Member
Mr. Frank C. Jones Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

         The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)


APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his records be corrected to show he did not have lost time and that he did not possess marijuana.

APPLICANT STATES: That his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows he had 69 days of lost time and that he was convicted by civil authorities for possession of marijuana. He was not in possession of marijuana and he was not convicted and fined. He was held without just cause. He did not go to any civilian court nor did he see any civilian judge. This was all proved at his court-martial, that is why he received an honorable discharge. He was taken from Tocumen International Airport in Panama for being an American. His family paid a ransom for his release. He was court-martialed shortly after his release. He won his court-martial. He was promoted to Specialist Four, E-4 and transferred to Fort Meade, MD where he received his honorable discharge. He was told after his court-martial that he was to return to active duty and that he would be known as a political prisoner. He was sworn to never breathe a word of these matters. He provides his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) and 2 pages of his DA Form 2-1 as supporting evidence.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 June 1974. After completing advanced individual training he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 95C (Correctional Specialist). He was assigned to Fort Clayton, Canal Zone on or about 23 October 1974. He was promoted to Private First Class, E-3 on 11 December 1974.

Item 27 (Remarks) of the applicant’s DA Form 2-1 shows he was confined by civil authorities on 9 July 1975 at Tocumen International Airport for possession of marijuana and that he was convicted and fined and released on 16 September 1975.

Item 21 (Time Lost) of the applicant’s DA Form 2-1 contains the entry “750709/ 750915/ 69/AWOL/IMPRMT see item 27.”

A Military Police Report dated on or about 13 July 1975 indicated the applicant was arrested at Tocumen International Airport, Panama City, Panama, upon returning from Miami, FL, for possession of 9 packages of cigarette rolling paper and 2 grams of a greenish vegetable substance believed to be marijuana in a plastic bag inside the applicant's suitcase. The applicant had informed the Military Police Liaison that he had no knowledge that the marijuana and papers were in the suitcase because the suitcase belonged to his brother. Later Military Police Reports indicated that on 16 July 1975 the applicant was found guilty of the above offense and sentenced to a $500.00 fine. He was transported to jail pending payment of the fine. He was released to the Military Police Liaison on 16 September 1975 and then released to his unit.
There is no record of disciplinary actions, either nonjudicial or judicial, on file in the applicant's Official Military Personnel File. He was promoted to Specialist Four, E-4 on 17 May 1976. He was reassigned to Fort Meade, MD on or about 5 August 1976.

The applicant reviewed his DA Form 2-1 on 10 May 1977.

The applicant was honorably released from active duty on 17 August 1977 after completing 3 years of creditable active service. His DD Form 214 shows he had 69 days of lost time. He signed his DD Form 214.

A copy of the Military Police Report was provided to the applicant for comment or rebuttal. The applicant responded by stating that he was not taken to any court on 16 July 1975 nor was he in the company of any military police. He stated that he smuggled a letter out of the jail because no one from his unit would get in contact with him. He sent a letter to his grandmother to ask his Congressman to start a Congressional investigation. A Department of the Army Inspector General went to Panama to secure his release and he was released on 15 September 1975 after a $5,500 ransom was paid to an officer of the jail. When he returned to his unit, his commander handed him an Article 15 for being absent without leave (AWOL) and a discharge packet. He was court-martialed for something he did not do. At his court-martial, he was found not guilty of being AWOL or of possessing marijuana. He was returned to active duty and would be known as a political prisoner.

The applicant further stated that the Military Police Report listed his son, S___ III, who is only now 12 years old. He (the applicant) is S___ II. He did not request deletion of lost time on his DD Form 214 because he was beaten repeatedly during those 69 days and did not want it forgotten. What he is asking is that the charges of being in possession of marijuana and AWOL be taken off his Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) records.

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. 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.

2. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was arrested in Panama for possession of marijuana and spent time in civil confinement. There is no record that he was court-martialed for this offense. However, if he was, and was found not guilty, there would no longer be a record (after almost 30 years) of the court-martial in any files. That does not change the fact that the available evidence of record shows the applicant spent time in civil confinement for an offense for which the civil authorities found him guilty.

3. The applicant provides no evidence, such as a Congressional investigation or Department of the Army Inspector General report, to substantiate his version of his arrest and confinement. He provides no evidence to show he attempted to substantiate his version of his arrest and confinement while he was still on active duty. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes his records accurately reflect what happened to the applicant regarding his arrest, confinement, and conviction in 1975.

4. The Board has no jurisdiction over information placed in VA records. Since the Board concludes that there is insufficient evidence to justify correcting the applicant's military records, there is nothing on which to base a request that the VA change their records.

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

__lls___ __le____ __fcj ___ DENY APPLICATION



                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records




INDEX

CASE ID AR2002080425
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED 20030529
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY Mr. Chun
ISSUES 1. 123.06
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | AR20050014849C070206

    Original file (AR20050014849C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He also states that he told his commander that all he wanted was to get treatment and carry on with his duties but his commander did not want to hear that. He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 21 July 1977 for an upgrade of his discharge and contended at that time that it was unjust for the Army to discharge him for a civilian offense, because he was serving time for that offense at that time. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015085

    Original file (20110015085.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests his record be corrected to show authorization of a bronze service star with his Parachutist Badge. The applicant states he is authorized a bronze service star with his Parachutist Badge based on his combat jump in Panama in December 1989. The evidence of record confirms the applicant served in Panama with the 82nd Signal Battalion in December 1989.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001942

    Original file (20090001942.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his military records be corrected to show his voided enlistment as creditable service and that he be issued either an honorable or a general discharge. A DIS form, dated 13 February 1978, provided the following information: a. on 13 August 1975, the applicant was arrested for grand theft; b. on 11 December 1975, the applicant entered a plea of guilty to the crime of petty theft, valued at less than $150.00, a misdemeanor of the first degree; c. on 14 January 1976, the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500471

    Original file (ND0500471.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. As of this time, the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091713C070212

    Original file (2003091713C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states that he was not physically fit to perform guard duty because he was under a limited duty profile. DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 11 November 1974, shows the applicant's duty status was changed from "Present for Duty" to "Civilian Confinement" effective 7 November 1974. There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001306

    Original file (20110001306.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. There is no evidence to show the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072794C070403

    Original file (2002072794C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On or about 27 March 1980, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, misconduct - concealment of conviction by civil court. It is not important.” The recruiter also stated in front of him and his wife that if it ever came up the recruiter would deny it. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120012908

    Original file (20120012908.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 21 November 1979, the unit commander recommended the applicant's appearance before a board of officers convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph14-33b(1), for the purpose of determining whether he should be discharged before the expiration of his term of service. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. Army Regulation 635-200,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010054

    Original file (20120010054.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, his records contain: a. A duly-constituted DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 9 November 1987 in accordance with chapter 3 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) as a result of a court-martial with a bad conduct discharge. As a result, his record of service was not satisfactory and is insufficiently meritorious to warrant upgrading his discharge to either a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100024394

    Original file (20100024394.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 July 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100024394 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 5505.7 (Titling and Indexing of Subjects of Criminal Investigations in the Department of Defense) serves as the authority and criteria for USACIDC titling decisions. Based on the applicant's military service records and information provided by officials at the USACIDC, it appears that the applicant was properly titled at the various...