Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013317
Original file (20100013317.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  23 November 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100013317 


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 his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty), item 9c (Authority and Reason), be corrected to show he was separated for completion of required service.  He also requests the removal of his court-martial action from his official military personnel file (OMPF).

2.  He states he was honorably discharged from the Army on 3 March 1978 after completing his 3-year enlistment.  He is currently seeking employment and his life has totally changed since he was issued the 1975 court-martial action.  The court-martial action is affecting his search for employment.  The court-martial was brought to his attention when he applied for a position with the Census Bureau.  He was advised he could not be hired because of the court-martial action in his record.

3.  His provides his DD Form 214 and a completed DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States).

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 requests that item 9c of his DD Form 214 be corrected to show he was released from active duty (REFRAD) on 17 March 1978 for completion of required service.  Prior to his REFRAD he requested a DD Form 214 that showed the narrative reason for separation, a narrative description of the regulatory or statutory authority for separation, and the reenlistment code.  At the time of his REFRAD he was issued a DD Form 214 annotated with dashes in item 9c.  He will be provided a copy of the DD Form 214 filed in his OMPF which shows he was REFRAD under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 2 with a separation program designator (SPD) code of “LBK," completion of required service.  As a result, this request will not be discussed further in this Record of Proceedings.

3.  The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army in pay grade E-1 on 15 May 1974, for 3 years.  He completed training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 31M (Mechanical Communication Equipment Operator).

4.  On 21 May 1975, he was convicted by a general court-martial of one specification of the wrongful distribution of a controlled substance, to wit:  5 hits of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD) on 5 March 1975.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 9 months, a forfeiture of all pay and allowances, a reduction to pay grade E-1, and to be discharged from the Army with a dishonorable discharge.  The sentence was adjudged on 4 June 1975.

5.  On 11 August 1975, the convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as provided for confinement at hard labor for 9 months, forfeiture of $228.00 per month for 9 months, and reduction to pay grade E-1 and the sentence was ordered executed except.  That portion of the sentence adjudging a dishonorable discharge was suspended for 1 year, at which time, unless sooner vacated, the suspended portion would be remitted without further action.

6.  He was reduced to pay grade E-1 on 11 August 1975.

7.  On 2 September 1975, the convening authority suspended the forfeiture in excess of $160.00 pay per month for each month until such time as the sentence was ordered into execution.  Unless the suspension was sooner vacated, the suspended portion would be remitted without further action.
8.  On 14 January 1976, the convening authority suspended the unexecuted portion of the approved sentence to a dishonorable discharge until 20 March 1976, at which time, unless sooner vacated, the suspended portion would be remitted without further action.

9.  On 4 March 1976, the U.S. Army Court of Military Review affirmed the findings of guilty and the modified sentence.

10.  On 1 November 1976, he was promoted to specialist four/pay grade E-4.

11.  On 15 March 1978, he requested a DD Form 214 that indicated the narrative reason for his separation, a narrative description of the regulatory or statutory authority for separation, and the reenlistment code.

12.  He was honorably REFRAD in pay grade E-4 on 17 March 1978 and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement).  He was credited with 2 years, 11 months, and 28 days of net active service.  

13.  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 change a court-martial 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's contentions were considered.  The available evidence shows he was convicted by a general court-martial for wrongfully distributing LSD on 
21 May 1975.  The convening authority approved a sentence that provided for a dishonorable discharge, confinement at hard labor for 9 months, a forfeiture of $228.00 pay per month for 9 months, and reduction to pay grade E-1.  The dishonorable discharge was suspended 1 year.  On 4 March 1976, the U.S. Army Court of Military Review affirmed the findings of guilty and modified the sentence. 

2.  His court-martial sentence was determined appropriate and affirmed.  Any redress by this Board of the finality of a court-martial conviction is prohibited by law.  He has provided no evidence that the court-martial orders do not reflect the true state of affairs existing at the time.  Given the applicant's charge at the time and absent any mitigating factors, the court-martial was appropriate, and as a result there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to remove the court-martial action from his OMPF.
3.  The evidence also shows subsequent to his court-martial he was promoted to pay grade E-4 and was honorably REFRAD on 17 March 1978 for completion of required service.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting his request.

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)                                         AR20100013317



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100013317



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012111

    Original file (20080012111.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his general court-martial be expunged from his official records. The applicant has not provided any evidence in support of his application. In accordance with Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records is not empowered to change a court-martial conviction, rather it is only empowered to change the severity of the sentence imposed in the court-martial process and then...

  • 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 | CY2013 | 20130010528

    Original file (20130010528.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests upgrade of his dishonorable discharge to an honorable discharge. He stated he did not have any of the applicant's service records. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009903

    Original file (20100009903.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 September 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100009903 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the applicant's discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted. _______ _ __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 | CY2003 | 2003088668C070403

    Original file (2003088668C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was convicted on 22 January 1976 and sentenced to 3 years' confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections (TDC). On 3 September 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's appeal for an upgrade of discharge. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070015348

    Original file (20070015348.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded. In accordance with Title 10, United States 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. As a result, there is no evidentiary basis upon which to support the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge at this time.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03552

    Original file (BC-2005-03552.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03552 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 25 MAY 07 ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). At the time of the offense, the applicant was a 35 year old Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) with over 13...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009155

    Original file (20120009155.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, his record contains a duly-constituted DD Form 214 that shows on 12 June 1975 he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) for the good of the service and received an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, states: a. However, his record contains a duly-constituted DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged for the good of the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015231

    Original file (20140015231.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his 1976 discharge be voided or, in the alternative, an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial to an honorable discharge. The applicant submitted an application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. Thus, the evidence of record refutes the applicant's contention that he was innocent of the charges against him and that there was misrepresentation...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005579

    Original file (20080005579.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to an honorable or general discharge. The applicant contends that his bad conduct discharge should be upgraded to an honorable or general discharge. After a thorough review of the available records, there was no cause for clemency and an insufficient basis upon which to base an upgrade of the applicant’s bad conduct discharge to an honorable or general discharge.