| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member | ||
| Mr. Harry B. Oberg | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to an honorable or general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he desires to have his discharge upgraded because he has acquired new skills as a networking engineer and an upgrade would assist him in starting a new career.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in St. Louis, Missouri, on 20 April 1983, for a period of 3 years and training as a tank system mechanic. He successfully completed his training at Fort Knox, Kentucky, and was transferred to Germany on 17 September 1983. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 20 April 1984.
On 12 April 1985, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for the wrongful possession and use of marijuana. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2 (suspended until 12 October 1985), a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.
On 16 July 1985, he plead guilty and was convicted by a general court-martial of possession with intent to distribute 15 grams of hashish, distribution of 5.14 grams of hashish, and the distribution of 5.55 grams of hashish. He was sentenced to a BCD, confinement for 18 months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and reduction to the pay grade of E-1. Pursuant to a pretrial agreement, the convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as provides for a BCD, confinement for 9 months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.
On 12 November 1985, the United States Army Court of Military Review (USACMR) affirmed only so much of the findings of guilty of specification one of the charge, with respect to quantity, as finds that the applicant wrongfully possessed with intent to distribute 9.86 grams, more or less, of marijuana in the hashish form. That court also affirmed the remaining findings and sentence imposed by the convening authority and opined that the applicant suffered no prejudice as to his sentence.
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.
Accordingly, he was discharged with a BCD on 25 March 1986, pursuant to a duly reviewed and affirmed court-martial conviction. He had served 2 years, 3 months and 25 days of total active service and had 219 days of lost time due to imprisonment.
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 offense 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
__hbo___ __tl_____ __ao____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003086536 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/08/28 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | BCD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1986/03/25 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/GCM |
| DISCHARGE REASON | GCM |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 675 | 144.6800/A68.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021800
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 July 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110021800 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged from the Regular Army on 28 January 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 3, due to court-martial. The applicant contends that his bad conduct discharge should be upgraded to honorable and the reason for discharge should be changed to ETS because none of the offenses were...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120019298
The applicant requests an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge to a general discharge. 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. c. Paragraph 3-7b states that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091646C070212
The Board considered the following evidence: The resultant sentence included a forfeiture of all pay and allowances, discharge from the service with a DD, and confinement for five years. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was over 21 years of age at the time he entered active duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008454
On 20 March 1986, the U.S. Army Court of Military Review (USACMR) considered the applicant's appeal, found that the findings and sentence were correct in law and fact, and affirmed the findings and sentence. On 10 November 1986, he was discharged from the Army with a BCD under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 3, as a result of court-martial. Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice), paragraph 3-10,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080002938
Therefore, the offenses for which he was charged did not qualify under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for a bad conduct discharge. On 22 February 1988, the applicant was discharged, pursuant to his sentence by court-martial, with a bad conduct discharge. The Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, provides, for violations of Article 112a (wrongful possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana), a maximum punishment of a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge, 2 years...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016185
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 convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged, but the execution of the sentence adjudging confinement in excess of 4 months was suspended for 6 months, with provision for the suspended portion of the sentence to be automatically...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004104636C070208
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The application submitted on this case is dated 29 February 2004. In accordance with Title 10 of the 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 | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010088
However, he held the rank/pay grade of private/E-1 at the time of separation. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. The applicant's record is devoid of any evidence and he did not provide any evidence that he was ever told his BCD would be upgraded after a period of 6 months.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007265
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 October 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090007265 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 15 October 1986, the U.S. Army Court of Military Review ordered that the findings of guilty for Specifications 1 and 5 of the charge be set aside and dismissed and that the action of the convening authority, dated 19 July 1983, be set aside and the record of trial be returned to The Judge Advocate General for a new review and action by a different convening authority. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080000720
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The evidence of record shows the applicant pled guilty on specified charges and received a general court-martial for the wrongful possession and distribution of hashish on three separate occasions in March 1985. The evidence shows his conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulation.