Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004198
Original file (20090004198.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	         21 July 2009 

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090004198 


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 his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states the bad conduct discharge is the result of a mistake he made during his younger days in the military, helping another person out of a bad situation, and in turn, causing him irreparable damage.  He states he sold drugs to an undercover Narcotic Agent so the young lady he was helping would not be put in harm's way.  He states that he hopes the enclosed statements and awards that he has accumulated since his discharge show the positive direction his life has been going since that incident occurred.

3.  The applicant provides two Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System On-the-Spot Awards, a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Certificate of Appreciation, a Certificate of Attendance - Training for Hospice Unit, a New Directions - Completion Certificate, and three reference letters in support of this application.

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 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.  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 applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 3 August 1981 with 3 years of prior active service and 3 years and 4 days of prior inactive service.  He was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11C (indirect fire infantryman), and he was promoted to pay grade E-4.  The available records do not show any significant acts of achievement or valor during his military service.

3.  Headquarters, 7th Infantry Division (Light), Fort Ord, CA, Special Court-Martial Order Number 45, dated 24 April 1987, indicates the applicant was arraigned and tried on the specification of wrongful distribution of .566 grams of cocaine on 6 June 1986.  He was found guilty and the sentence was adjudged on 27 February 1987.  The applicant's sentence consisted of reduction to the rank/grade of private (PV1)/E-1, confinement for 90 days, and discharge from the Army with a bad conduct discharge.  The sentence was approved and, except for the part of the sentence extending to a bad conduct discharge, ordered to be executed.

4.  Headquarters, 7th Infantry Division (Light), Fort Ord, Special Court-Martial Order Number 9, dated 3 February 1988, shows the applicant's sentence to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for 90 days, and reduction to PV1/E-1, adjudged on 27 February 1987, as promulgated in Special Court-Martial Order Number 45, Headquarters, 7th Infantry Division (Light), Fort Ord, dated 24 April 1987, had been affirmed and the bad conduct discharge was ordered to be executed.  That part of the sentence extending to confinement had been served.

5.  On 21 February 1989, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 3, as a result of a court-martial.  The DD Form 214 the applicant was issued shows he completed 7 years, 4 months, and 7 days of active duty for this period of military service.  Item 24 (Character of Service) of this form shows the entry "Bad Conduct" and item 29 (Dates of Time Lost During This Period) shows the entry "870227-870511."

6.  Army Regulation 635-200 governs the policies and procedures for the separation of enlisted personnel.  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.
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.

7.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-11, provides that a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial.  The appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed.

8.  Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process.  In accordance with Title 10, U.S. 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.  The applicant was convicted by a special court-martial for wrongful distribution of cocaine.  Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted.

2.  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.

3.  The applicant was given a bad conduct discharge pursuant to an approved sentence of a special court-martial.  The appellate review was completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed.  Further, the applicant's discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant did not submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
4.  The applicant's prior military service and his good post-service conduct were carefully considered.  However, these are not sufficiently meritorious to warrant upgrading a properly issued discharge.

5.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.

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)                                         AR20090004198



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090004198



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004642

    Original file (20090004642.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The applicant's DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows he was promoted to private first class on 1 April 1981 and that this is the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000256

    Original file (20100000256.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His records show he served at Fort Ord, CA, in his MOS from January 1988 to September 1990. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterized the misconduct for which he was convicted. After a review of the applicant’s record of service, it is clear that his service did not meet the criteria for an honorable discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | AR20080016337

    Original file (AR20080016337.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant’s military personnel records contain a copy of United States Army Court of Military Review, Appellate Military Judges, United States (Appellee) versus [Applicant] in Army Court of Military Review 8801623, Decision, dated 31 October 1988, that shows on consideration of the entire record, the Court held the findings of guilty and the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017569

    Original file (20080017569.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 11 August 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080017569 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. This document further shows the applicant had time lost under Title 10, U.S. Code, section 972, from 27 March 1992 to 26 November 1993. The evidence of record shows the applicant was convicted by a GCM and he received a BCD.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070002672C071029

    Original file (20070002672C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a General, Under Honorable Conditions Discharge (GD). The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant on 2 May 1986 shows that he completed a total of 3 years of active military service. The applicant's contentions that his discharge should be upgraded because he was a good Soldier, because he regrets his actions, and based on the fact he served his severe sentence and has turned his life...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110023043

    Original file (20110023043.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 May 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110023043 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged in accordance with chapter 11 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) as a result of court-martial with a bad conduct discharge. 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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010620

    Original file (20120010620.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Orders 228-5, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Correctional Activity, Fort Riley, KS, dated 25 November 1985, discharged him from the Army in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), effective 3 December 1985. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 3, as a result of court-martial with a bad conduct discharge. ABCMR...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100030553

    Original file (20100030553.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) issued to the applicant upon his discharge on 6 May 1987 shows he was separated under the provisions of chapter 3, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), by reason of court-martial with a BCD. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. In accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003101

    Original file (20140003101.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests upgrade of his bad conduct discharge to a general discharge, under honorable conditions. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. _____________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 | CY2010 | 20100000349

    Original file (20100000349.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 22 June 1983, the U.S. Army Court of Military Review set aside the guilty finding of wrongfully appropriating U.S. currency of a value of $50.00, the property of another Soldier, and affirmed only so much of the sentence as provided for a BCD and confinement at hard labor for 2 months. A review of the available records does not show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. ...