| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member | ||
| Mr. Ronald J. Weaver | Member |
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
4. On 27 March 1986, the applicant accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for the wrongful possession and distribution of hashish. His punishment for this offense included a reduction to PV1, forfeiture of $319.00 per month for two months, and 45 days of restriction and extra duty.
5. On 5 December 1986, pursuant to his pleas, the applicant was found guilty of the following six specifications of violating Article 112a of the UCMJ on the dates indicated by a general court-martial (GCM): on or about 17 July 1986, wrongfully distribute some amount of marijuana in the hashish form; on or about late July or early August 1986, wrongfully distribute some amount of marijuana in the hashish form; on or about 19 August 1986, wrongfully distribute approximately 4.4 grams of marijuana in the hashish form; on or about 19 August 1986, wrongfully possess approximately 15 pieces of marijuana in the hashish form; on or about 17 September 1986, wrongfully distribute some amount of marijuana in the hashish form; and on or about 17 September 1986, wrongfully distribute some amount of marijuana in the hashish form. The resultant sentence included a forfeiture of all pay and allowances, discharge from the service with a DD, and confinement for five years.
6. On 23 January 1987, the GCM convening authority approved the sentence on the applicant and ordered all of it with the exception of the DD to be executed. On 30 April 1987, the United States Army Court of Military Review upon consideration of the entire record, held that the findings of guilty and the sentence as approved by the GCM convening authority were correct in law and fact. Accordingly, the guilty finding and the sentence were affirmed.
7. On 10 March 1988, GCM Order Number 76, issued by the United States Disciplinary Barracks, US Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, directed that the DD portion of the applicant’s sentence
be executed based on the guilty findings and sentence having been finally affirmed. On 15 April 1988, the applicant was discharged accordingly.
8. The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of his separation shows that he received a DD, under the provisions of paragraph 3-10, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of court-martial. It also shows that at the time of his separation, he held the rank of PV1, and he had completed 3 years and 9 months of creditable active military service.
9. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 3, Section IV, establishes policy and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge; and provides that a soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial; and that the appellate review must be completed and affirmed sentence ordered duly executed.
10. Title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552 as amended does not permit any redress by this Board of the finality of a court-martial conviction and empowers the Board to only change a discharge if clemency is determined to be appropriate.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was over 21 years of age at the time he entered active duty. Further, he had completed over three years of his four year enlistment and was almost 25 years of age at the time of his first disciplinary infraction in March 1986. Finally, at the time of his GCM conviction, he had already received the Army Good Conduct Medal for his first three years of honorable service. These facts clearly establish the fact that the applicant was mature enough to successfully serve and complete his enlistment without committing the offenses that led to his GCM conviction and discharge.
2. The evidence of record further confirms that the applicant’s trial by
court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses for which he was charged. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted.
3. By law, any redress by this Board of the finality of a court-martial conviction is prohibited. The Board is only empowered to change a discharge if clemency is determined to be appropriate to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed.
4. The applicant’s entire record of service and his post service conduct were carefully considered; however, neither were sufficiently meritorious to warrant clemency given the seriousness of the offense for which he was convicted. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting clemency in this case.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
_JHL___ __AO__ __RJW___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003091646 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2004/01/22 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | DD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1988/04/15 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | GCM Conviction |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 360 | 144.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002149C070205
The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of his separation, 23 May 1986, shows that he was separated with a DD under the provisions of paragraph 3-10, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of court-martial. The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013066
The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of his dishonorable discharge (DD). The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of his separation, 12 June 1984, shows that he was separated with a DD under the provisions of paragraph 3-10, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of court-martial. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080021304
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests, in effect, that his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded. His Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) contains a Personnel Action (DA Form 4187), dated 29 August 1991, which shows he received non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on 22 April 1991.
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 | CY2009 | 20090007360
The court sentenced the applicant to a reduction to private (PVT)/E-1, confinement for 60 days, and a bad conduct discharge. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterized the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070005665C071029
Qawiy A. Sabree | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. 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 need for health care alone is not a basis that would warrant upgrading the applicant’s discharge to either honorable or general based upon clemency.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010607
On 21 April 1975, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 11-2, that states a member will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial, after completion of appellate review and after such affirmed sentence has been ordered duly executed. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not...
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 | 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 | CY2009 | 20090006947
The orders show the general court-martial convening authority approved the sentence and directed that, except for the bad conduct discharge, the sentence be executed. The records of the FBI are under the jurisdiction of that agency and the Board does not have the authority to direct that they correct those records. While the applicant is correct that the findings of the drug charges should also include the final disposition of the charges on the FBI RAP sheet, the Board does not have the...