Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005764
Original file (20090005764.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	      10 SEPTEMBER 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090005764 


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 bad conduct discharge be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states that at the time of his discharge he was young and a novice with really no sense of responsibility and that he made irrational decisions.  He contends that now he is much older with a brighter future and responsibilities.

3.  The applicant provides no documentary evidence in support of his 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 was born on 1 February 1981.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 June 1999 and trained as a combat engineer.
3.  On 12 April 2001, in accordance with his pleas, the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial of two specifications of wrongful appropriation.  He was sentenced to be confined for 6 months, to forfeit all pay and allowances, to be reduced to E-1, and to be discharged with a bad conduct discharge.  The convening authority approved the sentence on 17 December 2001.

4.  The decision of the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals is not available.  However, on 26 November 2002, the convening authority ordered the bad conduct discharge to be executed, indicating the sentence was affirmed.

5.  The applicant was discharged with a bad conduct discharge on 27 March 2003 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 3, as a result of a court-martial.  He had served a total of 3 years, 4 months, and 14 days of total active service with 139 days of lost time due to confinement.

6.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 3 of this regulation states 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.

7.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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.

9.  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 ABCMR 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.  Age is not a sufficiently mitigating factor.  The applicant was 18 years of age when he enlisted.  In addition, he served almost 2 years of service prior to his misconduct.

2.  Trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses 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.

3.  The applicant's record of service included one general court-martial conviction and 139 days of lost time.  As a result, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant a general discharge or an honorable discharge.

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.



      ___________XXX______________
                 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)                                         AR20090005764



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090005764



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140004311

    Original file (20140004311.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 24 December 1980, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 11, as a result of a court-martial with a BCD. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. The evidence of record shows the applicant was convicted by two courts-martial, the last of which ordered his BCD.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011850

    Original file (20060011850.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was retained for the convenience of the Government for 139 days and was discharged on 23 December 1987, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 3, as a result of court-martial, with a bad conduct discharge. The applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 293 with this application; however, there is no evidence of record that shows the applicant had previously applied for an upgrade of his discharge to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) within...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120000949

    Original file (20120000949.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 14 November 2006, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for a discharge upgrade. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable or a general discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012500

    Original file (20100012500.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to honorable. He was sentenced to reduction to the rank of private/E-1, confinement for 6 months, and to be discharged from the U.S. Army with a bad conduct discharge. Accordingly, he was discharged on 30 December 2008, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 3, by reason of court-martial with a bad conduct discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015523

    Original file (20140015523.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. General Court-Martial Order Number 9, dated 22 March 1966, issued by the Headquarters, Sixth U.S. Army, Presidio of San Francisco, shows the applicant's sentence had been affirmed and the convening authority remitted the unexecuted portion...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021480

    Original file (20100021480.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 February 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100021480 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-10, provides that a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a General or Special Court-Martial. 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 | CY2013 | 20130018045

    Original file (20130018045.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his 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. Therefore, clemency in the form of an honorable or general discharge is not warranted in this case.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009848

    Original file (20100009848.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to honorable. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 24 June 1983 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 3, by reason of court-martial with a bad conduct discharge. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the final discharge appropriately characterized the misconduct for which he was convicted.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019859

    Original file (20130019859.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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. Therefore, clemency in the form of an honorable or general discharge is not warranted in this case.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007956

    Original file (20100007956.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 31 August 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100007956 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. 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. Conviction and discharge were affected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations in effect at the time, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which the...