Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03098031C070212
Original file (03098031C070212.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            29 JULY 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003098031


      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.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John Slone                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Richard Dunbar                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Thomas O'Shaughnessy          |     |Member               |

      The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to
honorable or general.

2.  The applicant states that he served in the Army on three separate
occasions.  During his first enlistment, he was promoted to pay grade E-4
and earned awards, including the Good Conduct Medal.  He was discharged in
November 1978.

      a.  Later that year he reenlisted, was sent to Fort Lee, Virginia,
for advanced training, and graduated at the top of his class.  On 6
February 1983 he received his second honorable discharge.

      b.  One month later he reenlisted and was assigned to Fort Bliss,
Texas, attended the Primary Leadership Development Course, and a leadership
school, where he finished second in his class.  He took a MOS (military
occupational specialty) test, receiving one of the highest scores at Fort
Bliss.  Nevertheless, he was experiencing a period of extreme emotional
distress due to family problems.  At that time he was employed at the
Central Issue Facility.  He soon found out that some of his peers were
stealing, but he never reported those thefts.  This continued for some
time.  He mentioned this to an acquaintance, who he later learned was an
informant, who prompted him to get involved in some of the deals.  In his
depressed emotional state, he became involved in one of those illegal
transactions.  He was charged with larceny, served two years in prison, and
was discharged from the Army with a bad conduct discharge.

      c.  After finishing his sentence, he tried to lead a normal life.  He
has the experience, education, ability, and willingness to do what he can
to support his family.  He has paid for his mistake; however, his bad
conduct discharge has prevented him from anything but low paying jobs.  He
has also lost almost all of his military benefits.  He served honorably for
almost eleven years.  He has also made every attempt to reform his
lifestyle.  He requests that his discharge be upgraded to general.

3.  The applicant provides a letter of support from a Member of Congress,
letters of support from two retired military members, and a letter of
support from an Army recruiter, all who testify to his good character.  He
provides copies of certificates showing successful completion of Army
training courses, copies of orders awarding him the Army Good Conduct
Medal, a copy of his 6 February 1983 Honorable Discharge Certificate,
copies of letters of commendation, and a copy of a certificate of
achievement.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty)
shows that he was released from active duty in the rank of SP4 (Specialist
Four) with an honorable characterization of service on 24 November 1978.
He had 3 years,   11 months, and 29 days of service.  He reenlisted for
four years on 26 February 1979 and was assigned to Fort Lee, Virginia.  He
completed training as a stock control accounting clerk and in April 1979
was assigned to a maintenance company in Germany.  He reenlisted for three
years on 7 February 1983.  In March 1984 he was assigned to Fort Bliss,
Texas.

2.  He was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 26 February
1975 through 25 February 1978.

3.  On 11 June 1982 he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15,
Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being drunk and disorderly.

4.  On 17 January 1985 the applicant's commanding officer informed the
applicant that he was not recommending him for award of the Army Good
Conduct Medal because of his apathy toward his responsibilities as a
Soldier since his assignment, and because his past alcohol and drug abuse
were not reflective of a good Soldier.

5.  Before a general court-martial which convened at Fort Bliss on 13
August 1985 the applicant was arraigned, tried, and found guilty of larceny
of military clothing and equipment of a value in excess of $100.00, at
diverse times between 7 January 1985 and 20 January 1985; and wrongfully
conspiring with two other Soldiers to steal military clothing and equipment
of a value of more than $100.00, at diverse times between 7 January 1985
and 20 January 1985.  He was sentenced to be reduced to the grade of E-1,
to pay the United States a fine of $2,000.00, to be confined for three
years, and to be discharged with a bad conduct discharge.  On 14 August
1985 orders were published assigning the applicant to the United States
Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.  On 31 October 1985 the
convening authority approved the sentence.

6.  On 3 July 1986 the Court of Military Review affirmed the findings of
guilty and the sentence.  On 1 May 1967 the sentence was affirmed and the
bad conduct discharge ordered to be executed.  The applicant was discharged
on 29 May 1987 with a bad conduct discharge.

7.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides for the discharge of enlisted
soldiers.  Paragraph 3-11 states that a soldier will be given a bad conduct
discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special
court-martial.  The appellate review must be completed and the affirmed
sentence ordered duly executed.

8.  The maximum punishment authorized by the Manual for Courts-Martial for
larceny is a dishonorable discharge, 10 years confinement, and total
forfeiture of pay and allowances.  The maximum punishment authorized for
any person who is found guilty of conspiracy is subject to the maximum
punishment authorized for the offense which is the object of the
conspiracy.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The record of trial by general court-martial is not available to the
Board; however, absent evidence to the contrary the applicant's conviction
for larceny and conspiracy to commit larceny, his sentence to confinement,
and his bad conduct discharge are correct.  The applicant himself does not
dispute his transgression or his sentence.  The applicant's sentence to
confinement for three years was lenient. He could have been sentenced to
confinement in excess of   10 years.

2.  The applicant's prior honorable service is noted and has been
considered.  His accomplishments during his honorable service are also
noted, as are the letters of support that he has received attesting to his
character and good post service conduct.  None of these factors, however,
either individually or in sum, warrant the relief requested.  There is no
injustice done to the applicant.

3.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing
argument in support of his request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JS___  ___RD __  ___TO __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.





            ______John Slone_______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003098031                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040729                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010409

    Original file (20140010409.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general discharge. On 23 April 1987, the applicant was discharged pursuant to a duly-affirmed court-martial conviction. Accordingly, his sentence was not disproportionate to the offenses for which he was convicted and he has failed to show sufficient evidence or reasons to warrant an upgrade of his discharge based on clemency.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010409

    Original file (20140010409 .txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general discharge. On 23 April 1987, the applicant was discharged pursuant to a duly-affirmed court-martial conviction. Accordingly, his sentence was not disproportionate to the offenses for which he was convicted and he has failed to show sufficient evidence or reasons to warrant an upgrade of his discharge based on clemency.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012041

    Original file (20080012041.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states that he has two honorable discharges and that the penalty of a bad conduct discharge was not warranted. The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of his application. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant a general discharge or an honorable discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004101471C070208

    Original file (2004101471C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On the date of the applicant's discharge, he had completed 6 years, 3 months, and 2 days active military service, with 252 days excess leave. Contrary to the applicant's contentions that this was the only occurrence in 6 years of dedicated service, the evidence of record shows that he received non-judicial punishment twice. The evidence of record failed to establish a basis upon which clemency could be granted and upon which the severity of the sentence imposed could be moderated with an...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070018596

    Original file (20070018596.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to a general under honorable conditions discharge. The applicant contended that the charges of larceny and conspiracy should never have been filed because that was a matter between him and U. S. Air and was not service connected. Counsel stated that the applicant cannot receive DVA benefits for his service-connected injuries because of his bad conduct discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070081C070402

    Original file (2002070081C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : It has been 16 years since he received his bad conduct discharge. General Court-Martial Order Number 220, Headquarters, United States Army Correctional Activity, Fort Riley, Kansas, dated 20 March 1986, directed that the bad conduct discharge be executed.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010620

    Original file (20120010620.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Orders 228-5, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Correctional Activity, Fort Riley, KS, dated 25 November 1985, discharged him from the Army in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), effective 3 December 1985. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 3, as a result of court-martial with a bad conduct discharge. ABCMR...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012940

    Original file (20130012940.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 April 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130012940 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Therefore, clemency in the form of an honorable or general discharge is not warranted in this case.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | AR20080017318

    Original file (AR20080017318.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Accordingly, on 28 October 1986, the applicant was discharged from the Army with a bad conduct discharge, in the rank and pay grade of Private (PV1)/E-1, pursuant to the sentence of a special court-martial. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078915C070215

    Original file (2002078915C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 change a discharge due to matters which should have been raised in the appellate process. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was adjudged guilty by court-martial and that the convening authority approved the sentence. The Board finds no reason to grant clemency in this case.