RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  17 January 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070010060 


	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.


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Mr. Dean L. Turnbull

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr

Chairperson

Mr. John T. Meixell

Member

Mr. Rowland C. Heflin

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 corrections to his REDD (Reporting Electronic Distributing Document) Report, so his Separation Program Designator (SPD) code matches his character of service, amongst other corrections, and reinstatement to pay grade E-6 with back pay from 12 February 1991 to 16 December 2005.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his date of birth is incorrect on the REDD Report, it should be 12 March 1953 not 14 July 1955.  He states, in effect, he was in a bad position when the incident (assault with a dangerous weapon, negligently discharging a firearm, and communicating a threat) happened in Germany.  He had asked to be placed in a different Battery due to the problems he was having with his fellow Soldiers but his request was denied.  As a result, it put a strain on his ability to give a 100 percent towards his work.  He felt that if they had investigated the situation they would have found out that the person in charge took advantage of other Soldiers by using his rank.  He states when he was in charge of Soldiers he never used his rank to take advantage or to abuse them.

3.  He further states, in effect, that once he was notified that his unit was going to Saudi Arabia the uncertainty of not knowing when they were leaving and his concern for his family's well being was hard on him.  Once they arrived in Saudi Arabia he went days without sleeping and was constantly guarding against the enemy.  He was always taught by the Army if you were unsure who was approaching you to fire a warning shot.  It was during war time and he was especially concerned for his safety.  However, the Army did not take any of that into account.  Also, he was taking medication to control his high blood pressure which was not taken into account.  The Army was downsizing during this time and because of his years in service and his situation, they used it to their advantage.  He served his country well for 18-19 years earning awards and decorations and he had no problems until the situation.

4.  The applicant provides a copy of a written statement, DD Form  
214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), two Honorable Discharge Certificates, Certificate of Award for the Army Commendation Medal, REDD Report dated 26 March 2007, an extract from Special Court-Martial (SCM) Order 11, dated 22 January 1992, Medical Progress Note, five copies of his Army Good Conduct Medal Permanent Orders, and several character statements.  The character statements noted that the applicant is a hard worker, dedicated, professional, and well respected as a Soldier while on active duty and as a civilian in his community.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military service records show that he entered active duty on 30 December 1986.  He completed all the necessary training and was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) 13B (Cannon Crewmember).  

2.  On 12 February 1991, the applicant, then in pay grade E-4, was convicted by SCM of assault with a dangerous weapon, negligently discharging a firearm, and communicating a threat.  

3.  The SPCM Order 11 dated 22 January 1992, shows that the applicant was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for 4 months, forfeiture of $502.00 pay per month for 4 months, and reduction to E-1. The sentence pertaining to confinement in excess of 90 days, and forfeiture in excess of $376.95 pay per month for 3 months, were suspended for 90 days with provision for automatic remission.  The sentence was adjudged on 12 February 1991, and promulgated in SPCM Order Number 1, Headquarters, VII Corps, Operation Desert Storm, dated 31 March 1991.

4.  His records show that he received a Bad Conduct Discharge on 3 March 1992.  He had completed 4 years, 11 months, and  22 days of Net Active Service This Period and had 12 years, 3 months, and  12 days of Total Prior Active Service.  He had 312 days of excess leave.

5.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 
6 April 2005.  On 16 December 2005, the ADRB reviewed the applicant's record and found that clemency was warranted and the Board voted to upgrade the applicant's characterization of service to fully honorable and added that a change in the reason for his discharge was not authorized under Federal statute.

6.  A new DD Form 214 was prepared and reissued; however, item 21 (Signature of Member Being Separated) shows the entry as blank.

7.  The REDD Report is an electronic document that is generated through the recruiting effort of the United States Recruiting Command to verify the eligibility of new prospects for enlistment.  It has never been considered a source document and is used by recruiters as a quick review of ASVAB scores and service time.

8.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designated Codes), Table
2-3, states that the SPD code “JJD” denotes court-martial.  

9.  The Army Human Resources Command publishes a cross-reference table of SPD and Reentry (RE) Code.  This cross-reference table shows that an SPD code of “JJD” is assigned a RE Code of RE-4.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requests that his REDD Report be corrected so his SPD code matches his character of service, and reinstatement to pay grade E-6 with back pay from 12 February 1991 to 16 December 2005.

2.  The REDD Report is not considered as a source document and therefore, is not used outside the military.  As such, there is no basis for correcting that document.

3.  It is apparent that the applicant believes the action taken by the ADRB is tantamount to overturning his court-martial conviction.  This is not the case. 

4.  While the ADRB upgraded the applicant’s BCD, that Board did so as an act of clemency.  Therefore, the ADRB did not find any error which would form the basis for this Board to afford the applicant additional relief.

5.  The applicant’s records were carefully reviewed to determine whether this Board should afford the applicant the additional relief he is requesting as a matter of clemency.  In this regard, while the applicant has provided the Board with the reasons he committed his misconduct and has outlined the impact his conviction has had on his life, these considerations are not sufficient to warrant granting the applicant’s request for a change in his rank and SPD and back pay.  The applicant was properly convicted by a SPCM, that conviction was reviewed by the appropriate appellate authority, and the court-martial’s sentence was properly executed. 

6.  The applicant was assigned the proper SPD of “JJD.”  The code remains a valid code.  Since the applicant was properly discharged, there is no reason to change his SPD code and RE code.

7.  While the applicant’s BCD has been upgraded by the ADRB, there is no basis for the additional relief to be granted by this Board as requested by the applicant.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__HOF  _   __RCH__  __JTM___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.




_____Hubert O. Fry, Jr.____
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20080117
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.