Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005952
Original file (20090005952.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  29 September 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090005952 


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 upgrade of his dishonorable discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that after receiving his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), he is requesting that his discharge be upgraded.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) and he entered active duty on 29 December 1999.    

2.  The applicant’s record contains a copy of Headquarters, U.S. Army Field Artillery Center, Fort Sill, OK, General Court-Martial (GCM) Order Number 163, dated 22 June 2006, which documents the following charges, pleas, and findings:

	a.  Charge I, Article 102, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), with two specifications:  
	

		(1)  Specification I:  On divers occasions between or about 2 August 2004 and on or about 25 February 2005, rape a person who had not attained the age of 12 years.  Plea:  Not Guilty.  Finding:  Dismissed.  
		
   (2)  Specification II:  On or about 26 February 2005, rape a person who had not attained the age of 12 years.  Plea:  Not Guilty.  Finding:  Dismissed.

	b.  Charge II, Article 125, UCMJ, with three specifications:  

		(1)  Specification I:  At or near … on divers occasions between on or about 20 December 2002 and on or about 1 April 2003, commit sodomy with a child under the age of 12 by force and without consent of said child.  Plea:  Guilty.  Finding:  Guilty.

		(2)  Specification II:  At or near … on divers occasions between on or about 2 April 2004 and on or about 1 August 2004, commit sodomy with a child under the age of 12 by force and without consent of said child.  Plea:  Guilty.  Finding:  Guilty.

		(3)  Specification III:  At or near … on divers occasions between on or about 2 August 2004 and on or about 1 March 2005, commit sodomy with a child under the age of 12 by force and without consent of said child.  Plea:  Guilty.  Finding:  Guilty.

	c.  Charge III, Article 134, UCMJ:

		The Specification:  On or about 26 February 2005, commit an indecent act upon the body of a female under 16 years of age, not the wife of the accused, by using his hand to rub lotion on her vaginal area with the intent to gratify the lust and sexual desires of the accused.  Plea:  Guilty.  Finding:  Guilty.
		
3.  On 8 March 2006, sentence was adjudged.  The applicant was sentenced to be reduced to private (PV1)/E-1, forfeit all pay and allowances, confined for a period of 23 years, and to be dishonorably discharged from the U.S. Army.  However, only so much of the sentence extending to the grade of PV1/E-1, confinement for 7 years, and to be dishonorably discharged from the service would be executed.  The automatic and adjudged forfeiture of all pay and allowances were deferred effective 23 March 2006 and the deferment was terminated on 22 June 2006.  The automatic forfeitures required under Article 58b, UCMJ, were waived effective 22 June 2006, for a period of 6 months.


4.  The applicant’s record contains a copy of U.S. Army Field Artillery Center, Fort Sill, OK GCM Order Number 39, dated 1 February 2007.  This order shows, in pertinent part, that the applicant's sentence was approved and the dishonorable discharge was ordered duly executed.

5.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged on 6 November 2007, under the provisions of chapter 3 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), by reason of court-martial, with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 4.  This form further lists the applicant's character of service as dishonorable.

6.  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 (ABCMR) is not empowered to change a discharge due to matters which should have been raised in the appellate process, 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.

7.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 3 provides the policies and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or a bad conduct discharge.  Paragraph 3-10 contains guidance on issuing a dishonorable discharge.  It states, in pertinent part, that a Soldier will be given a dishonorable discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a GCM.  The appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed.

8.  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.

9.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was convicted by a GCM and he received a dishonorable discharge.  Trial by a GCM was warranted by the serious nature of the offenses for which the applicant was charged and convicted.  The sentence is commensurate with the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted.  The applicant’s service was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant granting clemency. 

2.  Any redress by this Board of the finality of a court-martial conviction is prohibited by law.  The Board is only empowered to change a discharge if clemency is determined to be appropriate to moderate the severity of the sentence imposed.  Given the applicant's record of service, the seriousness of the offenses for which he was convicted and which occurred over a number of years, and absent any mitigating factors, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate.  As a result, clemency is not warranted in this case.

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.  

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)                                         AR20090005952



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012370

    Original file (20090012370.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the alternative, he requests that this Board upgrade his dishonorable discharge to an honorable discharge, as an act of clemency. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was convicted pursuant to his guilty pleas by a general court-martial adjudged on 13 November 2001. The applicant's available military records and documentation submitted with his application and his records contain no matters upon which the Board may grant clemency and an upgrade of his dishonorable discharge...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012876

    Original file (20140012876.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. Army Regulation 635-200 governs the separation of enlisted personnel. The conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-1988-01116A

    Original file (BC-1988-01116A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 1988-01116 COUNSEL: NONE xxxxxxxxxxxxx HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 28 DECEMBER 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests that his dishonorable discharge be remitted to allow for his retirement. The applicant’s complete submission, with...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010943

    Original file (20100010943.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant states: * he was tried and convicted by a general court-martial on 16 November 2006 on four separate charges * at that time he held the rank of staff sergeant/E-6 and had been selected for promotion by the 2006 Sergeant First Class Board * he was originally sentenced to 14 years of confinement, reduction to E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge * a rehearing on the sentence was ordered * the rehearing was conducted on 13 February 2007; two...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018779

    Original file (20100018779.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests upgrade of his bad conduct discharge (BCD) to a general under honorable conditions discharge. The part of the finding of Charge II stating "by force and without consent of the Sergeant [T]" and the sentence were set aside. However, his first term of service conduct and achievements alone are not a basis for upgrading a discharge on a second enlistment and, upon review, his conduct and achievements are not sufficient to mitigate his indiscipline in the Regular Army.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110005933

    Original file (20110005933.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    BOARD DATE: 3 November 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110005933 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 3 January 2008, charges were preferred against the applicant for: * committing sodomy with a child under the age of 12 between 1 May and 12 November 2005 * on divers occasions between 1 May and 12 November 2005, committing an indecent act on a female under the age of 16 * desertion from 16 September 2007 to 3 January 2008 4. Article 71(c) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013343

    Original file (20100013343.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was discharged accordingly on 16 October 1987 in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-10, as a result of a court-martial, with a dishonorable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, further provided a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The evidence of record shows his offenses warranted this punishment.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100012318

    Original file (AR20100012318.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted by the applicant. 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. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011767

    Original file (20110011767.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    General Court-Martial Order Number 7, Headquarters, U.S. Army Transportation Center Staff Judge Advocate, Fort Eustis, VA, dated 4 June 2001, shows the following charges, pleas, and findings: a. Finding: Guilty b. Finding: Guilty 5.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003121

    Original file (20070003121.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his dishonorable discharge (DD) be upgraded. The applicant states, in effect, that his DD should be upgraded due to the severity of his punishment. 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 dishonorable discharge.