| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Joyce A. Wright | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Mae M. Bullock | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests that his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to an
honorable discharge.
2. The applicant states that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident. He completed 10 years of service with no adverse action.
3. The applicant provides several copies of job performance and character references letters.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant's military records show he enlisted on 30 April 1984, as a parachute rigger. He continued to serve through a series of continuous reenlistments. He was promoted to the pay grade of sergeant (SGT/E-5) with an effective date and date of rank (DOR) of 1 December 1991.
2. In accordance with his pleas he was found guilty by a general court-martial on 14 April 1995, of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute (specification 1) and distribution of marijuana (specification 2). His sentence consisted of a reduction to the lowest enlisted grade, a forfeiture of pay, confinement for 2 years and 5 months, and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority approved the sentence on 13 July 1995 and, pursuant to a pretrial agreement, suspended that portion of the sentence adjudging confinement in excess of 20 months for a period of 20 months.
3. On 21 March 1996, the Army Court of Criminal Appeals set aside and dismissed specification 1 of the charge, alleging wrongful possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The finding of guilty on specification 2 was affirmed. The court affirmed only so much of the sentence as provides for a bad conduct discharge, confinement for 16 months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.
4. 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.
5. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 6 May 2003. However, his case was ineligible for review by the ADRB due to his conviction by a general court-martial. This Board accepted his application (DD Form 293 [Application For the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States]) in lieu of a DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record).
6. The applicant provided several copies of his job performances and character references letters, which stated that he is a valuable employee, dedicated and devoted, performed a variety of different jobs, and has excellent work habits.
7. 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.
8. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 3-10 of that regulation provides that a soldier will be given a dishonorable discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general court-martial, after completion of appellate review and after such affirmed sentence has been duly executed.
| CASE ID | AR2003091330 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20040226 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | BCD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19970425 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, chapter 3-11 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 360 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079155C070215
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. His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002256
Headquarters, U.S. Army Correctional Facility, Fort Riley, KS, General Court-Martial Order Number 272, dated 24 May 1985, shows that after completion of all required post-trial and appellate reviews, the convening authority ordered the applicant's bad conduct discharge duly executed. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release of Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged in the rank/grade of private/E-1 as a result of court-martial in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017434
On 29 March 1985, the United States Army Court of Military Review considered the record of trial in the applicant's case. At issue before the Court was whether the military judge erred by considering, during sentencing, portions of a record of trial from a prior general court-martial of the applicant. The applicant contends that his dishonorable discharge should be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions because he was introduced to drugs and alcohol by Soldiers...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057265C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general discharge. He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Germany on 29 August 1976.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006306
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. _______ _ X______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070015333
The applicant requests his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant states that the presumption of regularity that might normally permit the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to assume that the Army acted correctly in characterizing his service as less than honorable does not apply in his case because of the evidence he is submitting. This form further shows the applicant's character of service as bad conduct and that he completed 4...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018712
He was 20 years and 6 months of age at the time. d. The applicant was 18 years of age at the time of his first enlistment and 20 years of age at the time of his reenlistment. He was 21 years of age when he was convicted by a court-martial the first time and 23 years of age when he was convicted by a court-martial the second time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002715
The applicant requests an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's 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. There is no evidence he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003615
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 JULY 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090003615 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's contention that his General Court-Martial conviction should be overturned and that clemency be granted in the form of a general discharge as well as the character reference letters he submitted were carefully considered; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating to grant him the requested relief. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002928
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 September 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140002928 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). His conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and his discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted.