RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  31 May 2007
	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. Gerard W. Schwartz

Director

Ms. Antoinette Farley

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. William F. Crain

Chairperson

Mr. Donald L. Lewy

Member

Mr. Roland S. Venable 

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, in effect, that his dishonorable discharge be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that it has been over 20 years since he was discharged.  The applicant continues that consideration should be given to the type of crimes he committed, the time that has passed, and based on his age at the time of the incidents.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentary evidence in support of this application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's records show that he entered active duty in the Regular Army on 20 November 1984, at the age of 19.  The applicant successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 94B (Food Service Specialist).  The highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private/pay grade E-2.  

2.  The applicant's Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) shows 
that during his active duty tenure, he earned the Army Service Ribbon, the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16), and the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar.  

3.  The applicant's record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  

4.  On 28 October 1985, the applicant pled guilty at a General Court-Martial (GCM), which convicted the applicant of being absent without leave (AWOL) during the periods 16 June 1985 through 18 June 1985 and 19 July 1985 through 31 July 1985; of 17 specifications of forgery during the period 8 June 1985 through 22 June 1985; and of 6 specifications of making, and uttering a check and then failing to maintain sufficient funds during the period 3 June 1985 through 8 June 1985.  The applicant's record also shows he pled guilty to the additional charge and specification of larceny, forgery, and attempting to steal lawful US currency of a value of $100.00 from the Security Service Federal Credit Union on 31 July 1985.  The applicant was sentenced to forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 3 years confinement, and a dishonorable discharge.


5.  The general court-martial convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as follows: forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 2 years, and dishonorable discharge, in Headquarters, 4th Infantry Division, (Mechanized), Fort Carson, Colorado, GCM Order Number 100, dated 3 December 1985.

6.  On 11 September 1986, GCM Order Number 667, issued by Department of the Army United States Army Correctional Activity, Fort Riley, Kansas, directed, Article 71c of the UCMJ having been complied with, that the dishonorable discharge portion of the sentence be duly executed.

7.  Department of the Army, United States Disciplinary Barracks, US Army Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, Order Number 190-01, dated 24 October 1986, shows the applicant was separated on 31 October 1986, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Discharge).  These orders further show the applicant was issued a Dishonorable Discharge.  

8.  The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that he was separated with a dishonorable discharge 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 had completed a total of 7 months and 28 days of active military service with 835 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 3 provides the policies for assigning a character/
description of service in connection with separation.  Paragraph 3-10 contains guidance on Dishonorable Discharges.  It states that a Soldier will be given a DD pursuant only to an approved sentence of a GCM.  The appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed.  

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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  

11.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not 
sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his dishonorable discharge should be upgraded because it has been over 20 years since his discharge.  He further contends that consideration should be given to the types of crimes he committed and his age at the time of the incidents.

2.  Evidence of record shows the applicant was 19 years old at the time of his enlistment into the Army and at the time the offenses occurred.  There is no evidence that indicates that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.

3.  The evidence of record confirms 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 his rights were protected throughout the court-martial process.  

4.  Based on this record of disciplinary problems, the applicant's service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct and lost time also render his service unsatisfactory. Therefore, he is not entitled to either a general discharge or an honorable discharge.

5.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge are appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

6.  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 sentence imposed.  After a thorough and comprehensive review of the applicant’s military service record, it is concluded that based on his disciplinary history and the seriousness of the offenses for which he was convicted, clemency would be inappropriate in this case.  

7.  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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_RSV_______  __DLL______  __WFC______  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.




___William F. Crain____
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060015269
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED

TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DD
DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR635-200,paragraph 3-10
DISCHARGE REASON
As a result of court-martial
BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.