| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Margaret V. Thompson | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his bad conduct discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That he feels he has changed. He did well in the Army except for the fact he made some bad choices. He started out very well. He was the distinguished honor graduate in advanced individual training and had a lot of pride. He would like his discharge changed so he can further his education and finish what he started in the Army. He is no longer an immature child. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was born on 23 August 1976. He completed high school. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 November 1995. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 52D (Power Generator Equipment Repairer). He was promoted to Specialist, E-4 on 1 February 1998. He was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 3 November 1995 – 2 November 1998.
The applicant departed absent without leave (AWOL) on 4 January 1999 and returned to military control on 2 February 1999. There is no evidence that he received punishment for this AWOL.
On 22 November 1999, the applicant pled guilty to and was convicted by a general court-martial of three specifications of wrongfully distributing methamphetamines in March 1999 (3.7 grams, 3.7 grams, and 7.7 grams, respectively), of conspiracy (with a Sergeant) to produce methamphetamines in July 1999, and of attempted larceny of private property of a value less than $100.00 in July 1999. His approved sentence was to forfeit all pay and allowances, to be discharged with a bad conduct discharge, and to be confined for 42 months (that amount in excess of 36 months suspended for 36 months).
On 15 August 2000, the U. S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence.
On 28 September 2000, the Army Clemency and Parole Board denied the applicant's request for parole, noting that, although he had a good overall record in confinement and had participated in the recommended treatment, it was felt he had not yet fulfilled the punitive, deterrent, and rehabilitative aspects of his sentence for serious offenses.
On 16 November 2000, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denied the applicant's petition for a grant of review.
On 11 July 2001, the applicant was discharged, with a bad conduct discharge, pursuant to his conviction by court-martial. He had completed 3 years, 11 months, and 13 days of creditable active service and had 624 days of lost time (29 days AWOL and 595 days confinement).
On 20 September 2001, the Army Clemency and Parole Board denied the applicant's request for parole. The Army Clemency and Parole Board had previously granted a request to reconsider his case for parole contingent on his continued good conduct and progress in treatment and rehabilitation. However, that board noted that he had not continued good conduct and progress in treatment and rehabilitation.
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. 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.
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.
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. The Board notes that the applicant was almost 23 years old at the time of the offenses and had over 3 years of service in the Army. He should have known what the consequences of such serious misconduct would be. The Board concludes that there are insufficient grounds for upgrading the applicant's discharge for clemency reasons.
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
__rjw___ __mhm __mvt___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003085565 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030930 |
| 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. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082519C070215
The record of trial was forwarded to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for review by a Court of Military Review. On 16 June 1986, the United States Court of Military Appeals denied the applicant's petition for grant of review. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was adjudged guilty by court-martial and that the convening authority approved the sentence.
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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100292C070208
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant provides no evidence in support of his application. When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100024632
On 27 March 1985, the U. S. Army Court of Military Review set aside and dismissed the findings of guilty of Specifications 1 and 3 (wrongful possession of methamphetamine) of the Charge. Paragraph 3-11 of this regulation 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 conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and the discharge appropriately...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000240C070208
The applicant states that he had honorable time in service 2 months prior to his discharge. The applicant's service personnel records do not contain all of the applicant's separation processing documentation. He had completed 2 years, 9 months, and 19 days of creditable active military service.
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130000225
IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 8 May 2013 CASE NUMBER: AR20130000225 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board found no cause for clemency and voted to deny relief. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The record shows the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087029C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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: The Board notes the applicant's contention that he was under extreme stress due to his house being robbed and his wife raped shortly before the incident for which he was convicted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087048C070212
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. On 16 November 2001, the applicant was discharged with a bad conduct discharge pursuant to his sentence by court-martial.
NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00848
At this time, I am asking for a General Discharge. 880728: Naval Clemency & Parole Board does not grant clemency; restoration denied.881017: Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review: The findings of guilty and sentence, as approved on review, are affirmed.890328: Special Court Martial Supplemental Order: Article 71(c), UCMJ, having been complied with, bad conduct discharge ordered executed. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040007304C070208
He reenlisted on 20 June 1997 for a period of 6 years. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552 (f), prohibits the ABCMR from correcting records of courts-martial and administrative records pertaining to court-martial records tried or reviewed under the Uniform Code or Military Justice, except for corrections directed by reviewing authorities or clemency on the sentence. _____Mark D. Manning_____ CHAIRPERSON INDEX |CASE ID |AR20040007304 | |SUFFIX | | |RECON | | |DATE BOARDED |2005/10/04 | |TYPE...