| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Larry C. Bergquist | Member | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his dismissal under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he simply wants to clear his name and that 34 years of living with his discharge is sufficient punishment. In support of his application he submits a copy of a letter he wrote to the President of the United States dated 18 September 2002.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was commissioned as a United States Army Reserve second lieutenant on 4 June 1956, upon graduating from the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC). He entered active duty on 2 November 1956 and was detailed as a field artillery officer. He subsequently accepted a Regular Army commission and was promoted to the rank of captain on 18 October 1961.
On 14 April 1966, while stationed in Wackernheim, Germany, charges were preferred against the applicant for three specifications of larceny.
On 11 May 1966, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for resignation for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. In his request he stated that he understood that if his request was accepted, that he would be discharged under other than honorable conditions. The general court-martial convening authority recommended disapproval of his request and on 25 July 1966, the Special Assistant, Office of the Under Secretary of the Army, denied his request.
He was convicted on 12 July 1966, by a general court-martial, pursuant to his pleas of guilty, of the charge of three specifications of larceny. He was sentenced to dismissal from the service. The convening authority approved the findings and sentence of the general court-martial on 13 August 1966 and directed that he be transferred to the United States pending his appellate review.
On 23 December 1966, the United States Army Judiciary, Office of The Judge Advocate General of the Army, affirmed the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority.
The applicant submitted a petition for a grant of review by the United States Court of Military Appeals and his request was denied.
Accordingly, he was dismissed under other than honorable conditions on 15 August 1967, pursuant to a duly reviewed and affirmed court-martial conviction. He had served 10 years, 9 months and 14 days of total active service.
A review of the applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) fails to show that he earned any awards. Additionally, he was counseled for failure to pay his just debts, an Army Emergency Relief loan.
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’s contentions have been noted by the Board. However, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to the seriousness of his offenses and his overall undistinguished record of service.
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
___lb ___ __be ____ ___ra___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003085030 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/07/10 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1967/08/15 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-120/GCM |
| DISCHARGE REASON | GCM |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 675 | 144.6800/A68.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073323C070403
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. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The FSM’s military records were lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973. The Board is empathetic with the family, but concludes that the FSM's less than honorable record of service does not provide a basis for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052763C070420
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: 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: Based on the seriousness of the offenses for which the applicant was convicted, the Board concludes that the resultant DD was an appropriate punishment and even after considering his overall record of service, the Board still concludes that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | AR20050015266C070206
Chester Damian | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests that his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general discharge and that the reason for his discharge be changed to a more favorable reason. Accordingly, his punishment 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078347C070215
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). EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110006406
This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants 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. The record of trial was forwarded to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for review by the U.S. Army Court of Military Review. The evidence of record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 July 1978, and he cited his DOB as 10...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040008140C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 26 July 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR2004008140 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. On 4 May 2000, GCM Order 44, issued by Headquarters, United States Army Field Artillery Center and Fort Sill, Fort Sill, Oklahoma, directed, Article 71c of the UCMJ having been complied with, that the BCD portion of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020527
The applicant states he received an honorable discharge in 1956. His conviction, confinement, and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and his discharge appropriately characterized the misconduct for which he was convicted. His records show he received NJP on two occasions for being AWOL and failing to report, he was convicted by a special court-martial and a general court-martial for being AWOL on three separate occasions, and he was AWOL again.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014096
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 28 May 1993, the applicant was discharged accordingly. In accordance with Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records is not empowered to set aside a conviction.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014421
The convening authority approved so much of the sentence as provided for 10 months in confinement, total forfeitures, and a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD). It stated that an enlisted person will be discharged with a dishonorable discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial and would be accomplished only after the completion of the appellate process, and affirmation of the court-martial findings and sentence. In this case, the evidence provides an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007186
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. Accordingly, he was discharged in pay grade E-1 on 26 June 1967, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-204 (Dishonorable and Bad Conduct Discharges), as a result of a court-martial. The evidence of record shows the applicant was...