IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 17 SEPTEMBER 2008
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080013961
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, in effect, that General Court-Martial Order 13 be evaluated and placed in his restricted files. He requests that his records reflect only the charge for which he was convicted and served confinement.
2. The applicant states that the record is not set for the charge only on specification 2 [sic]. He continues to state that he was once told when he was confined that he had a year to show that he still had the selfless service to serve his country. He further states, in effect, that he has to maintain a Secret security clearance to perform his military duties and requests that his general court-martial order be placed in his restricted file.
3. The applicant provides a copy of General Court-Martial Order 13 and Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) correspondence in support of his application.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant's military service records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 November 1999. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded the military occupational specialty 13D (Field Artillery Tactical Data Systems Specialist).
2. General Court-Martial Order 13 dated 13 July 2005 shows that the applicant was charged with two specifications of Article 121 and one specification of Article 123 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He was found guilty of one specification of Article 121 for stealing a motorcycle valued at more than $500.00, the property of another Soldier, on or about 24 June 2004.
3. On 2 May 2005, the applicant received a sentence of confinement for 45 days, hard labor without confinement for 60 days, and reduction to the rank of private/pay grade E-1. The sentence was approved by proper authority on 13 July 2005 and he was credited with 1 day of confinement against the sentence to confinement.
4. On 14 July 2008, the DASEB returned the applicants request for transfer of the general court-martial order to his restricted file without action. The DASEB informed him that the authority to transfer a general court-martial order to his restricted file rests with the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).
5. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/ Records) prescribes policies, operating tasks, and steps governing the Official Military Personnel File. This regulation provides, in pertinent part, that court-martial orders will be filed in the performance section of a Soldiers Official Military Personnel File. This regulation states that a court-martial order may be transferred to the restricted file by the ABCMR to correct an error or to remove an injustice.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicants request was carefully considered and determined to be without merit.
2. General Court-Martial Order 13 shows that the applicant was found guilty of one specification of Article 121, UCMJ, for stealing a motorcycle valued at more than $500.00, the property of another Soldier, on or about 24 June 2004.
3. Army Regulation 600-8-104 provides that court-martial orders will be filed in the performance section of a Soldiers Official Military Personnel File.
4. The applicant did not provide evidence of error or injustice in support of his request.
5. In view of the foregoing considerations, there is no evidence of error or injustice. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant did not submit evidence that would satisfy that requirement. Therefore, he is not entitled to relief in this case.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__X_____ ___X____ ___X___ 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.
___________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.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080013961
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080013961
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080019405
He was told his discharge would be under honorable conditions because the other persons involved were the ones who did the stealing. On 23 January 1975, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for stealing personal property of another Soldier valued at $20.00. Special Court-Martial Order Number 21, Headquarters, III Corps and Fort Hood, Texas, dated 19 July 1977, provided that the sentence to a bad...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017249
The career manager informed the applicant that she had to submit an application to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to have the documents removed. The applicant contends, in effect, all documentation pertaining to her being wrongfully investigated, flagged, and the court-martial action should be removed from her records because she is being unfairly judged as a result of these filings. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the...
USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1401801
The Applicant’s service record documents a punitive conviction and punishment, as adjudged by a Special Court-Martial, on 9 May 2011. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900295
Record of service. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a...
USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00033
(Equity Issue) Pursuant to 10 USC 874 (b) (UCMJ, Article 74) and in accordance with SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 2.24 and 9.3, this former member requests the Board's clemency relief with up-grade of his characterization of service to under honorable conditions on the basis of his post-service conduct. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 970723 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged...
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001819
The command opted to prefer the new charges of misconduct to trial by special court-martial.The stated misconduct resulted in the special court-martial awarding a punitive Bad Conduct Dischargeand confinement for 6 months.The NDRB recognizes that many of our service members are young at the time they enlist for service, however, most manage to serve their enlistment honorably. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019823
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 July 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130019823 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests removal of General Court-Martial (GCM) Order Number 5, dated 19 August 2010, from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The applicant was convicted by a GCM on 13 March 2010 for adultery and found not guilty of two specifications of rape and sexual assault.
USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600675
The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). ), necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.050501: Applicant’s personal statement to the Commanding General, 1 st Marine Division.050502: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge as under other than honorable conditions by reason of a pattern of...
ARMY | DRB | CY2011 | AR20110020955
Chapter 3, Section IV, establishes policy and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge; and provides that a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial; and that the appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. The evidence of record indicates the applicant was adjudged guilty by a court-martial and that the sentence was approved by the...
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000240
The NDRB is not authorized to change the reentry code as requested by the Applicant nor upgrade the characterization of service at discharge solely to facilitate re-enlistment;as such, no relief warranted. Furthermore, based on this review, and the facts and circumstances unique to this case, the Board determined that the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was equitable and that relief on the basis of clemency was not warranted. ” Additional Reviews : After a document...