RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 10 June 2008
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080002938
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.
Director
Analyst
The following members, a quorum, were present:
Chairperson
Member
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 bad conduct discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
2. The applicant states that the crime he committed was not treason and was not of a national security interest. Therefore, the offenses for which he was charged did not qualify under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for a bad conduct discharge.
3. The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. 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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants 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. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicants failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 March 1984.
3. On 25 July 1985, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ for unlawfully drawing ten checks, totaling $1,100.00, upon the Post Exchange knowing he did not have sufficient funds for the payment of the checks.
4. On 14 January 1986, the applicant was convicted, contrary to his pleas, by a special court-martial of violating Article 112a by wrongfully possessing 2.13 grams of marijuana in the hashish form; wrongfully possessing 8.929 grams of cocaine with intent to distribute; and of violating Article 92 by wrongfully possessing a switchblade knife in violation of a lawful general regulation. He was sentenced to forfeit $425.00 pay per month for 3 months, to be reduced to pay grade E-1, to be confined for 3 months, and to be discharged with a bad conduct discharge.
5. On 28 August 1986, after considering two allegations of prejudicial error concerning whether the knife was a switchblade or a stiletto and whether the staff judge advocate provided ambiguous advice concerning the recommended sentence regarding the forfeitures, the U. S. Army Court of Military Review affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence.
6. On 22 February 1988, the applicant was discharged, pursuant to his sentence by court-martial, with a bad conduct discharge.
7. The Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, provides, for violations of Article 112a (wrongful possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana), a maximum punishment of a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge, 2 years confinement, and total forfeitures; for violations of Article 112a (wrongful possession of cocaine with intent to distribute) a maximum punishment of a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge, 15 years confinement, and total forfeitures; and for violations of Article 92 (failure to obey a regulation) a maximum punishment of a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge, 2 years confinement, and total forfeitures. Since the applicant was tried by a special court-martial, the maximum punishment that could have been imposed by the court for the offenses combined would have been a forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for six months, confinement for six months, a reduction to E-1, and a bad conduct discharge.
8. Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. In accordance with Title 10, 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. Rather it is only empowered to change the severity of the sentence imposed in the court-martial process and then only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. Contrary to the applicants contentions, the offenses for which he was convicted were punishable under the UCMJ. The maximum punishment he could have received could have been much harsher than the punishment actually imposed.
2. Trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offense 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.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__xxx____ __xxx___ __xxx___ 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.
__xxxxxxxxxxx____
CHAIRPERSON
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080002938
4
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
1901 SOUTH BELL STREET 2ND FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22202-4508
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070015081
There is no record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The evidence of record failed to establish a basis upon which clemency could be granted and upon which the severity of the punishment imposed could be moderated with an upgrade of the applicant's bad conduct discharge. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000352
The applicant requests an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge to honorable. 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. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120012931
His conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted. Therefore, clemency in the form of an honorable discharge or a general discharge is not warranted in this case. _______ _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 | CY1995 | 9509398C070209
The applicants counsel contends that the applicant was reduced in rank as a result of a sentence by a special court-martial on 2 May 1992, however, the sentence was not approved until 27 May 1992; therefore, the applicants date of rank on his DD Form 214 should be 27 May 1992. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusion, it would be appropriate to correct the applicants records as recommended below. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011654
x The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. This document stated, in part, that PV2 [G____] tried to take away the switchblade knife, and the [applicant] struggled and cut him on the right arm. There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140005424
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 November 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140005424 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 29 August 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board determined that he had been properly discharged from his 1975 separation. The applicant accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ on 20 December 1977, for willfully disobeying a lawful order from his superior noncommissioned officer.
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 | CY2008 | 20080012906
His sentence consisted of a bad conduct discharge from the service, a forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year. In accordance with Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) is not empowered to set aside a conviction. In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000131
He was discharged from active duty in pay grade E-1 on 6 April 1990, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-10, as a result of a court-martial, and the issuance of a dishonorable discharge. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterized the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted. _______ _ x_______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify...
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,...