| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Shirley Powell | Member | |
| Mr. Robert Duecaster | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That it said in his discharge paperwork that his discharge would be upgraded in 15 years. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was inducted into the Army on 25 June 1971. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 94B (Cook).
On 31 August 1972, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of possessing a quantity of marijuana and of wrongfully selling a quantity of marijuana. His approved sentence was to be discharged with a bad conduct discharge, to forfeit $150.00 pay per month for 2 months, and to be confined at hard labor for 45 days.
On 24 January 1973, the U. S. Army Court of Military Review affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence.
On 11 April 1973, the U. S. Court of Military Appeals denied the applicant's petition for grant of review.
On 25 May 1973, the applicant was discharged with a bad conduct discharge pursuant to his sentence by court-martial.
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.
The U. S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.
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. The applicant has provided no evidence which would justify the Board upgrading his discharge on the basis of clemency.
3. 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
__fne___ __sp____ __rd ___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003086445 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20031007 |
| 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 | CY2007 | 20070011595C080213
It has been 6 years since his discharge. On 6 May 2003, the applicant was discharged with a bad conduct discharge pursuant to his sentence by court-martial. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086536C070212
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 30 January 1986, the United States Court of Military Appeals denied the applicant's petition for grant of a review of the decision of the USACMR.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070012132C080213
He was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge. On 22 August 1989, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicants request for an upgraded discharge. Considering his first conviction by court-martial, even while acknowledging that it appears his second conviction of 13 February 1979 had not completed the appellate process, the discharge resulting from his third conviction by court-martial appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050005774C070206
Jeanette R. McCants | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests, in effect, that his 1973 conviction by a special court-marital be set aside. He was given an honorable discharge and promoted to E-4 in less than 18 months.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060057C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 14 November 1986, the U. S. Army Court of Military Review affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence. 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 | CY2002 | 2002077445C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He was discharged with a bad conduct discharge on 30 March 1989 pursuant to his sentence by court-martial. 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 | CY2003 | 2003091330C070212
The applicant requests that his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 25 April 1997, the applicant was discharged from the Army pursuant to the sentence of a general court-martial and was issued a bad conduct discharge. It is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078721C070215
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: Court-Martial Order Number 17, published by Headquarters, Fourth United States Army, dated 14 April 1958. Army Regulation 635-204 provided the policy for discharge of enlisted personnel pursuant only to approved sentences of a general court-martial empowered to impose a dishonorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014067
The applicant states, in effect, that he went to Korea at a very young age and completed 4 years of service. The applicant has provided no evidence to show that his discharge was unjust at the time of his offenses. His post service conduct is not sufficient as a basis to upgrade his bad conduct discharge, particularly in view of his misconduct and offenses.
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.