RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 5 October 2006
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060004672
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.
| |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | |Director |
| |Ms. Beverly A. Young | |Analyst |
The following members, a quorum, were present:
| |Mr. James Gunlicks | |Chairperson |
| |Mr. Michael Flynn | |Member |
| |Mr. Scott Faught | |Member |
The Board considered the following evidence:
Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.
Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests that his dishonorable discharge be upgraded to
an honorable discharge. He also requests that the narrative reason be
changed.
2. The applicant states he made a grave mistake during his youth and has
learned from this mistake. He states he has not been involved in any
wrongdoing since then. He is now 43 years old with a growing family, has a
good job, and is active in his community. He would like to have his
dishonorable discharge upgraded.
3. The applicant provides no additional documents in support of his
application.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 4 January 1985. The application submitted in this case was
received on
15 March 2006.
2. Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so. In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.
3. The applicant was born on 8 January 1963. He enlisted in the Regular
Army on 3 October 1980 for a period of three years. He successfully
completed basic training and advanced individual training and served in
Germany as a tank driver/ loader gunner.
4. He was promoted to specialist four on 1 April 1982.
5. On 29 March 1984, the applicant was convicted, contrary to his pleas,
by a general court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 29
September 1983 to 4 January 1984 and of wrongfully distributing 18 dosage
units, more or less, of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) on or about 30
August 1983. He was sentenced to a reduction to private E-1, a forfeiture
of all pay and allowances, confinement at hard labor for 15 months, and a
dishonorable discharge.
6. On 9 August 1984, the United States Army Court of Military Review
affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence. On 5 November 1984, the
dishonorable discharge was ordered to be executed.
7. The applicant was discharged on 4 January 1985 under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 3, section IV, as a result of court-
martial. He completed 2 years, 11 months, and 28 days of creditable active
service. He had 454 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
8. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation
of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 3-11 of this regulation states that a
Soldier will be given a dishonorable discharge pursuant only to an approved
sentence of a general court-martial. The appellate review must be
completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed.
9. Section 1552(f), Title 10, United States Code states that the ABCMR can
only review records of courts-martial and related administrative records to
correct a record to accurately reflect action taken by reviewing
authorities under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) or to take
clemency action.
10. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, 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, or is
otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly
inappropriate.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's service record shows he was 21 years old when he was
convicted by a general court-martial of being AWOL for a period of 97 days
and of wrongfully distributing 18 dosage units, more or less, of LSD. As a
result, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the
standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.
2. The 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.
3. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 4 January 1985; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
3 January 1988. Although the applicant is requesting a grant of clemency
based on good post-service conduct, he has not provided any evidence of
post-service achievement or good conduct. In the absence of such evidence,
it is not in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to
timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
JG______ MF______ SF______ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
1. The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate
the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board
determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis
for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
2. 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 application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law. Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.
James Gunlicks________
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
|CASE ID |AR20060004672 |
|SUFFIX | |
|RECON |YYYYMMDD |
|DATE BOARDED |20061005 |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE |DD |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE |19850104 |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY |AR635-200,paragraph 3-11 |
|DISCHARGE REASON |As a result of court-martial |
|BOARD DECISION |DENY |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY |Mr. Chun |
|ISSUES 1. |110.0000 |
|2. | |
|3. | |
|4. | |
|5. | |
|6. | |
-----------------------
[pic]
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 | CY2007 | 20070002799
The applicant states that he received an honorable discharge for his first tour of service and that his service record does not reflect his first honorable characterization of service. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) the applicant was issued at the time of his discharge confirms he was discharged with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The applicant contends that his discharge should be upgraded because his first period of service was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004101381C070208
Accordingly, on 16 December 1986, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 3, as a result of a duly reviewed and affirmed special court-martial conviction. A review of the available records fails to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080001777
On 30 January 1986, the Staff Judge Advocate, in a written review for the convening authority, summarized the evidence and trial discussion. On 11 February 1986, the convening authority approved the sentence providing for reduction to pay grade of E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 15 months, and except for that part extending to a dishonorable discharge, ordered the sentence executed. On 13 May 1986, the United States Army Court of Military Review considered...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017735
The applicant requests upgrade of his dishonorable discharge. On 18 September 1987, the applicant was separated with a dishonorable discharge. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003812C070206
There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009217
When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. However, there is insufficient evidence to substantiate his contention that the electrical shock that he sustained was the cause of his acts of misconduct. The available evidence show that it was not until 2008/2009 that he alleged a personality change which is almost 24 years after his discharge from the Army.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006440
The applicant was discharged from the Army on 28 May 1987. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 3, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), as a result of court-martial, with a bad conduct discharge. This form further shows the applicant completed 2 years, 5 months, and 4 days of creditable military service and had 232 days of lost time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003527C070206
Larry J. Olson | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 12 March 1985, the applicant requested to be placed in an excess leave status without pay and allowances.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070014202
On 31 December 1985, the United States Army Court of Military Review affirmed the findings and sentence. The applicant has provided no evidence to show that his discharge was unjust at the time of his offenses. It is noted that if the applicant was found guilty of the charged offenses today, and was convicted at a trial by court-martial, the maximum sentence that may be imposed for a single violation of Article 112a, would be a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances,...