| 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.
APPLICANT STATES: That it is his strong desire to reenlist. His bad conduct discharge bars him from reenlisting. He states that he has matured in the years since his discharge. Then, he was just an undisciplined child and did not care about anything but himself. Now, he has a 2-year old son who makes him realize there is more to life.
The applicant provides a supporting statement, dated 26 December 2002, from a friend. She stated she met the applicant while he was in the Army. He had a lot of pride about being in the Army. The only thing wrong was that he was immature and was easily influenced. She tried to be a positive influence but she guessed he did not trust her judgment. He made a lot of immature choices but now he knows how to be a man and make the right decisions in life.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was born on 19 January 1979. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 August 1998. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 19D (Cavalry Scout).
On 3 March 2000, the applicant, pursuant to a pre-trial agreement, pled guilty to and was convicted by a general court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from on or about 30 July 1999 to on or about 12 October 1999 and to 13 specifications of larceny. (He had stolen a bank card from the barracks room of a fellow soldier on 13 July 1999 and used it on 12 occasions over the next 9 days to withdraw a total of approximately $4,000.00 from that soldier's bank account.) The applicant was sentenced to a forfeiture of all pay and allowances, to confinement for 11 months, and to be discharged from the service with a bad conduct discharge.
On 29 September 2000, the U. S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence.
On 7 February 2001, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denied the applicant's petition for grant of review.
On 16 November 2001, the applicant was discharged with a bad conduct discharge pursuant to his sentence by court-martial.
Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552, as amended, precludes any action by this Board which would disturb the finality of a court-martial conviction. 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.
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.
Army Regulation 601-210 prescribes eligibility criteria governing the enlistment of persons into the Regular Army and the U. S. Army Reserve. In pertinent part, it states that persons with a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge have a reenlistment disqualification that cannot be waived.
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. The Board notes that the applicant was well over 20 years old at the time of the incidents which led to his court-martial. The Board also notes that the applicant did not commit a one-time offense of larceny – he unlawfully used the other soldier's bank card 12 times over a 9-day period.
3. 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.
4. The Board is cognizant of the fact the applicant's post-service conduct has been good. However, that factor does not warrant granting the relief requested.
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
__fne___ __sp____ __rd____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003087048 |
| 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 | CY2003 | 2003085565C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 11 July 2001, the applicant was discharged, with a bad conduct discharge, pursuant to his conviction 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 | CY2001 | 2001064593C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant appealed and on 19 February 1998 the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces granted his petition for review. The Board notes that the applicant’s request for early retirement had been approved by 9 September 1994.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070016759C071029
Roland S. Venable | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant’s adjudged sentence was to be confined for two years and to be discharged with a bad conduct discharge. In pertinent part, it states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066768C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. It states, in pertinent part, that a soldier in an AWOL status is not entitled to pay and allowances. 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 | 2003086153C070212
The applicant requests that his Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded to fully honorable. He is willing to rejoin the military to get his discharge upgraded. Without evidence to show that an error was made in his court-martial, or that the applicant’s post-service accomplishments are so meritorious as to warrant upgrading a properly issued discharge, there is insufficient basis in which to recommend approval of his request.
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 | CY2006 | 20060006468C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 3 April 2000, the applicant was discharged from the Army pursuant to the sentence of the general court-martial and was issued a BCD. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005043C070205
Edward E. Montgomery | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant's military records are not available for review. 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 (ABCMR) is not empowered to set aside a conviction.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088057C070403
The applicant states that he never received his DD Form 214. However, for soldiers who have previously reenlisted without being issued a DD Form 214 and are separated with any characterization of service except “Honorable,” then “Continuous Honorable Active Service From” (first day of service for which DD Form 214 was not issued) Until” (date before commencement of current enlistment) will be entered. That a DD Form 214 be prepared to record the applicant's service in the Army with a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003468C070206
LaVerne V. Berry | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Counsel requests the Board review all evidence in the applicant's case along with all mitigating and extenuating circumstances coupled with the impetuosity of his youth and upgrade his discharge to a general under honorable conditions discharge through clemency. It is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious...