| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Richard P. Nelson | Analyst |
| Mr. Mark D. Manning | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Member | |
| Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast | Member |
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests upgrade of his dishonorable discharge to honorable.
2. The applicant states “I believe having an inability to inform my peers or those of higher ranking about my voices telling me to do bad things while in the U.S. Army was a result of jeopardy my military history.” The applicant further states that he has not had problems with the legal system since 1973.
3. The applicant provides copies of a physician’s orders for medication, a psychiatric evaluation dated 10 May 2002, a County Mental Health Adult Intake Assessment, and a declaration of conservatorship, dated 21 March 2000.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant's military records show he was inducted on 18 May 1971. He was trained in Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 71B20, Clerk Typist. The applicant served 8 months in Germany and 2 months at Fort Lewis, Washington, prior to committing a robbery, and then going Absent Without Leave (AWOL) on 15 November 1972. He returned to military control on 4 December 1972 and was confined on 5 December 1972 pending trial by court-martial.
2. On 9 March 1973, the applicant was convicted by a General Court-Martial of Robbery, committed on 30 October 1972 and of AWOL from 15 November 1972 until 4 December 1972. His sentence consisted of a dishonorable discharge, a forfeiture of all pay and allowances, a reduction from pay grade E-3 to pay grade E-1, and confinement at hard labor for 9 months. Sentence was adjudged on 9 March 1973 and approved on 5 April 1973.
3. On 23 July 1973, the Army Court of Military Review affirmed the court-martial’s findings and sentence.
4. On 14 August 1973, the applicant petitioned the United States Court of Military Appeals for grant of review of the decision of the Court of Review.
5. On 14 August 1973, the Army and Air Force Clemency and Parole Board disapproved clemency in the applicant’s case.
6. On 16 November 1973, the United States Court of Military Appeals denied the applicant’s petition for review. Accordingly, the sentence was ordered to be duly executed by Headquarters U.S. Disciplinary Barracks by the publication of General Court-Martial Order Number 1266, dated 19 December 1973.
7. The applicant was discharged under dishonorable conditions on 26 March 1974 in pay grade E-1. He had 1 year, 11 months and 9 days of creditable service for pay.
8. 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.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. 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.
2. The applicant’s entire record of service was considered. There is no record or documentary evidence of acts of valor, achievement, or service that would warrant special recognition.
3. The quality of the applicant’s service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance expected of Army personnel; therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his dishonorable discharge to honorable.
4. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show, 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.
6. Records show the applicant should have discovered the error or injustice now under consideration on 26 March 1974; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired 3 years from that date. However, the applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to file in this case.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
___mdm_ ___ecp___ ___rjw __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003088665 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20031209 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004978C070206
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge, characterized as under other than honorable conditions, be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to upgrade his discharge. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063076C070421
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. Army Regulation 635-206, then in effect, provided, in pertinent part, that an enlisted member who was convicted by a civilian court of an offense for which the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084226C070212
On 12 April 1976, the applicant's commander submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to conviction by civil authorities. Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, for misconduct – conviction by civil authorities. There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072445C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. His sentence included a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement at hard labor for 3 years and reduction to pay grade E-1. 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 | CY2006 | 20060004481C070205
The applicant states, in effect, that he was awarded a general discharge under other than honorable conditions. On 27 November 1974, the applicant was given an undesirable discharge from active duty for misconduct-conviction by civil court, and he received a reduction to Private/pay grade E-1. The ADRB noted, in effect, that the applicant was properly discharged in accordance with paragraph 33a, Section VI of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations- Discharge).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070000108
The applicant's DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 11 of Army Regulation 645-200 (Separation of Enlisted Personnel) on 29 September 1972, with a bad conduct discharge as a result of court-martial. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052285C070420
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070692C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his dishonorable discharge be upgraded to a more favorable discharge. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068221C070402
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: However, in this case, the Board finds the evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001066187C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The ADRB denied his request on 7 November 1974. Chapter 10 of the regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.