| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Joyce A. Hall | Analyst |
| Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Mark D. Manning | Member | |
| Mr. Robert Duecaster | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: He makes no additional comments. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 November 1992 for a period of 6 years.
He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 25P10 (Audio Document System Specialist). The highest pay grade he achieved was pay grade E-4.
On 2 November 1994, the applicant was convicted pursuant to his plea by a general court-martial of assault upon a female E-4 with intent to commit rape on or about 7 May 1994. His adjudged sentence was reduction to E-1, confinement for 24 months, and a bad conduct discharge in accordance with the terms of his pretrial agreement.
On 28 November 1994, the applicant submitted a request to be placed on voluntary excess leave without pay and allowances pending action by the
court-martial convening authority and review by the Army Court of Military Review. On 15 December 1994, the applicant’s request for voluntary excess leave was approved by the convening authority.
On 28 March 1995, the U. S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence. The record does not indicate that the applicant petitioned the United States Court of Military Appeals for a grant of review.
On 16 January 1996, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 3, as a result of a court-martial. He had completed 3 years, 2 months, and 4 days of active military service.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 3, Section IV, establishes policy and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge; provides that a soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial; and that the appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.
The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that
any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier's separation specifically allows such characterization.
Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, as amended, precludes any action by this Board which would disturb the finality or a court-martial conviction.
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. The Board considered the applicant's request to upgrade his bad conduct discharge to an honorable discharge.
2. The Board reviewed the applicant’s service record, which included his Record of Trial. The Board also noted that the applicant presented no evidence of error or injustice.
3. Trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offense 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.
4. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor convincing argument in support of the request.
5. The applicant has failed to provide any basis for the Board to grant clemency in his case.
6. Based on the applicant’s court-martial conviction, the Board determined that the applicant did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. Therefore, the applicant did not meet the criteria for an honorable discharge. The Board also determined that the applicant’s service was not satisfactory; therefore, he did not meet the criteria for a general discharge.
7. 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.
8. 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
__MDM _ __ SAC__ __RLD __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003086155 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030506 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Mr. Carl W. S. Chun |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064471C070421
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to honorable or general. On 20 April 1994, the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial of failing to obey four lawful general regulations, communicating two threats and carrying a concealed weapon. When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074997C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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 set aside a conviction. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090446C070212
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 23 March 1994, the United States Army Court of Military Review upon consideration of the entire record, held that the findings of guilty and the sentence as approved by the GCM convening authority was correct in law and fact. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDARSUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDEDTYPE OF DISCHARGE(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)DATE OF DISCHARGEDISCHARGE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077820C070215
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 applicant's military records show: Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086815C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: Title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552 as amended does not permit any redress by this Board of the finality of a court-martial conviction and empowers the Board to only change a discharge if clemency is determined to be appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077819C070215
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. The Board considered the applicant’s request that his bad conduct discharge be changed to entry level separation or uncharacterized.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064564C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected by upgrading his 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061387C070421
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 was discharged pursuant to his general court-martial conviction on 4 April 1997 and issued a bad conduct discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089687C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: Chapter 3, Section IV, establishes policy and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge; and provides that a soldier will be given one of these punitive discharges pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial; and that the appellate review must...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083775C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 9 May 2001, the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals upon consideration of the entire record, including consideration of the issues specified by the applicant, held that the findings of guilty and the sentence as approved by the GCM convening authority was correct in law and fact. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s entire record of service and found...