Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007383
Original file (20080007383.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  YOUNG, CYRUS 

		BOARD DATE:	        31 July 2008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080007383 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that his discharge be changed to a retirement and that he be awarded retired benefits and pay.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was previously approved to retire on 
31 July 2001.  He feels that he is being discriminated against because many officers received bad conduct discharges but returned to their unit to retire after doing 2 to 4 years in prison.  To take his retirement benefits and allow selected individuals their retirement benefits after being court-martialed for criminal offenses is discriminatory.  He asks for consideration of his 20 plus years of military service and sacrifices his family endured and grant the fruits of his retirement to support his family and medical needs for being a U.S. Army Soldier for 20 years.

3.  The applicant provides Headquarters, III Corps and Fort Hood Orders 
298-0242, dated 24 October 2000.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 March 1981 and successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training.  He was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 88M (Motor Transport Operator).  The applicant was later awarded MOS 63E (M-1 Tank System Mechanic).


2.  The applicant was honorably discharged on 23 February 1984 and immediately reenlisted on 24 February 1984.  He was honorably discharged on 
6 May 1987 and immediately reenlisted on 7 May 1987.  He was honorably discharged on 22 February 1992 and immediately reenlisted on 23 February 1992.  He was honorably discharged on 9 September 1995 and immediately reenlisted on 10 September 1995.

3.  Headquarters, III Corps and Fort Hood Orders 298-0242, dated 24 October 2000, show that the applicant's effective date of retirement would have been
31 July 2001 in the grade of Sergeant First Class (SFC)/E-7.

4.  Headquarters III Corps and Fort Hood Orders 040-0206, dated 9 February 2001, revoked the applicant's retirement orders.

5.  On 12 September 2001, the applicant was convicted, contrary to his pleas, by a general court-martial of, on or about 22 July 2001, attempting to wrongfully distribute approximately one pound of marijuana, conspiring with another to distribute marijuana, and wrongfully possessing approximately 18 pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute.  His sentence consisted of a reduction to the grade of private/pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for ten years, and a Dishonorable Discharge.

6.  On 7 March 2006, the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals (USACCA) affirmed the approved findings and the sentence.

7.  On 21 March 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) affirmed the USACCA decision.

8.  On 20 June 2007, the applicant was discharged with a dishonorable discharge pursuant to his court-martial sentence.  He completed a total of 
20 years, 1 month, and 25 days of creditable active service with 2,081 days of lost time due to confinement.

9.  Title 10, U. S. Code, section 3914 states that, under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Army, an enlisted member of the Army who has at least 20, but less than 30, years of service for an active Federal service (AFS) retirement may, upon his request, be retired.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 12, establishes policy and prescribes procedures for retiring enlisted Soldiers for length of service.  It states that a Soldier who has completed 20, but less than 30, years of AFS may, at the discretion of the Secretary of the Army, be retired at his or her request.  

11.  While the provisions of Title 10, U. S. Code, section 3914 and Army Regulation 635-200 allow the Secretary of the Army to grant an enlisted Soldier's request for a retirement, they do not eliminate the Army's jurisdiction to prosecute a Soldier with more than 20 years of service.  A punitive discharge adjudicated at a court-martial and executed by a convening authority eliminates a Soldier's eligibility for retired pay.  This is true for both officers and enlisted Soldiers.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  On 31 July 2001, the applicant was to retire from the Army after serving over 20 years of service.  However, his retirement orders were revoked prior to his court-martial, sentence, confinement, and discharge.  

2.  Retirement for an enlisted Soldier with less than 30 years of AFS is not a right, but is at the discretion of the Secretary of the Army.  The applicant’s misconduct, when he was an experienced Soldier with many years of service and should have known what the consequences of such misconduct could be, was a valid reason to deny retirement and is still a valid reason not to correct his records to show he earned a retirement.  In addition, he committed the misconduct before he completed 20 years of service.

3.  The applicant's entire record of service and age factor were considered in this case.  However, given the seriousness of the offenses for which he was convicted, it is determined that these factors are not sufficiently meritorious or mitigating to warrant the relief requested.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___xx___  ___xx___  ___xx___  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.



      _________xxxx_________
               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.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080007383



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080007383



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018432

    Original file (20140018432.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 July 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140018432 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. So he went AWOL so he could be with his father during his last days. Army regulations state that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned an RE code based on their service records or the reason for discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006244

    Original file (20120006244.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    c. He recently received correspondence from the recorder of the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) informing him that it appears he should have been placed on the Retired List in the grade of E-7 and he should apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for review of his case. 10 USC, section 3964 (Higher grade after 30 years of service: warrant officers and enlisted members), provides that each retired member of the Army covered by subsection (b) who is...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080009926

    Original file (20080009926.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests that his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the period ending 14 November 1997 be corrected to show he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 01H (Biological Sciences Assistant). On remand, the USACCA only affirmed so much of the sentence that provided for a bad conduct discharge and reduction to the grade and rank of PVT/E-1. The applicant's DD Form 214 with the ending period 14 November 1997 shows MOS...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140004118

    Original file (20140004118.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    If the law provides provisions to retain a service member with 18 or more years of service but less than 20 years, why would it not also provide the same provision for a service member who has over 20 years with an approved retirement? As a result, the Secretary of the Army exercised his authority to deny the applicant a voluntary retirement based on his completion of more than 20 years of active duty service. However, the Secretary of the Army may approve retirement requests from these Soldiers.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019529

    Original file (20130019529.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    His reasons for requesting a change in his discharge are that he was treated disparately and was subjected to selective prosecution, he had ineffective assistance of counsel at his court-martial, he never received a proper review of his clemency matters by the general court-martial convening authority (GCMCA), he was a victim of ineffective assistance of counsel at the appellate level, and the purpose of the bad conduct discharge has been served. The applicant served as a PSG and Battle NCO...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011650

    Original file (20100011650.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests upgrade of his dishonorable discharge to a general discharge. The applicant provides: * His DD Forms 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the periods ending 31 August 2006, 24 October 2002, and 7 February 2001 * General Court-Martial Order (GCMO) Number 95, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Armor Center, Fort Knox, KY, dated 12 May 2006 * U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals Decision, dated 14 December 2005 * GCMO Number 18, issued by...

  • AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00242

    Original file (FD2003-00242.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD03-0242 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. In view of the foregoing findings the board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed. During my nine months of technical school, I maintained an "A" average.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070008709

    Original file (20070008709.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    x The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. AR 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table, dated October 1999, provides instructions for determining the RE code for Active Army Soldiers and Reserve Component Soldiers separated for cause.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060006354

    Original file (AR20060006354.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was sentenced to be discharged with a bad-conduct discharge and confinement for 12 months. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S....

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061160C070421

    Original file (2001061160C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...