| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Chairperson | |
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member | |
| Mr. Frank C. Jones | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his dishonorable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was charged with sodomy and he did not commit that crime. Under today's standards, his court-martial would be dismissed. In a previous application (not considered by the Board), he stated that he was unable to communicate effectively in English (he is of Mexican descent) and was fearful that if he spoke in his behalf it would hurt his defense. The only trouble he got into was with civilians during wartime in Germany. He was awarded a dishonorable discharge for something that did not relate to his military duties. He served out his punishment in prison and was still awarded a dishonorable discharge. Since his separation, he has been in no trouble and his prior service was outstanding.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was born on 5 December 1921. He was inducted into the Army on 29 December 1942. He arrived in the European Theater of Operations on 7 March 1944.
On 26 May 1945, the applicant was convicted, in a common trial with one other soldier (not of Mexican descent), by a general court-martial of having committed sodomy by forcibly having carnal connection per anum with a female German civilian; of having committed sodomy by forcibly having carnal connection per os with a female German civilian; and of having committed sodomy by forcibly having carnal connection per os with another female German civilian; all offenses being committed on 22 March 1945. Neither soldier spoke in his own defense. The applicant was sentenced to 10 years confinement (reduced from 15 years as adjudged) and to a dishonorable discharge. The maximum sentence possible was death.
The applicant was discharged on 21 February 1946 with a dishonorable discharge pursuant to his conviction by court-martial.
Effective on or about 20 December 1948, the applicant was granted, as a special extension of clemency at the Christmas season by reason of his good conduct in confinement, remission of the unexecuted portion of his sentence to confinement only.
Army Regulation 635-200 governs the separation of enlisted personnel. In pertinent part, it states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s
service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Where there have been infractions of discipline, the extent thereof should be considered, as well as the seriousness of the offense(s). A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. It is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
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. 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.
3. Contrary to the applicant's contention, under today's standards a man could be convicted of sexual misconduct of a more "innocuous" nature (e.g., "date rape") than that for which the applicant was convicted. Contrary to the applicant's contention, good order and discipline in the Army does not stop at one's military post of duty but extends to behavior in the civilian community (even the civilian community of a near-defeated enemy) during off-duty hours.
4. The dishonorable discharge was a part of the applicant's sentence. It was not an additional punishment awarded after "he served out his punishment in prison." The Board also notes that the maximum punishment for the offenses for which he was convicted was death. He was sentenced only to 10 years confinement, about 7 years of which were remitted.
5. The Board is cognizant of the applicant's contention that his conduct prior to the incident and his post-service conduct have been good; however, this factor does not warrant the relief requested.
6. 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
__tsk___ __wdp___ __fcj ___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003084839 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030812 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Mr. Chun |
| ISSUES 1. | 105.01 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02842
The military judge found the applicant guilty of all charges and sentenced him to be reduced to the grade of E-1, be confined for 10 months, and to receive a bad conduct discharge. Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no compelling basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02-02842 in Executive Session on...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012876
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. Army Regulation 635-200 governs the separation of enlisted personnel. The conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he...
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005179
The applicant's counsel contends the Army reported a CID titling decision for an allegation of rape and forcible sodomy which lacked probable cause. The available evidence shows the applicant requested the CID correct his record. The evidence of record confirms the results of a CID investigation provided a sufficient legal basis for the applicant to be titled for forced sodomy.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003121
The applicant requests, in effect, that his dishonorable discharge (DD) be upgraded. The applicant states, in effect, that his DD should be upgraded due to the severity of his punishment. The evidence of record failed to establish a basis upon which clemency could be granted and upon which the severity of the punishment imposed could be moderated with an upgrade of the applicant's dishonorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710347
Mr.Calvin M. FowlerChairpersonMr.Ernest M. WillcherMemberMs.Tina L. StreetMember Also present, without vote, were:Mr.Loren G. HarrellDirectorMr.Joseph A. AdrianceAnalyst The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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: The convening authority agreed, under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710396
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. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that his DD was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident in over 15 years of service; that his physical impairments prior to and during his court-martial were not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069097C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 6 March 2001, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denied the petition for grant of review. 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.
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500938
PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application: “Poor legal representation & lack of speedy trial.” Documentation Only the service record was were reviewed. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the Applicant’s issues were insufficient to merit clemency (C).