IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 4 January 2011
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100017313
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 general court-martial be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
2. He states the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals set aside the finding of guilty of the charge of wrongful distribution of marijuana on 16 March 2000 and the charges were also dismissed.
3. He provides General Court-Martial Order Number 91, dated 2 June 2000; a memorandum for the General Court-Martial Convening Authority, dated 2 June 2000; a memorandum for the Commander, U.S. Army Armor Center and Fort Knox, dated 5 April 2000; and DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) 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 applicants 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 applicants failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 July 1993.
3. General Court Martial Order Number 45, dated 17 November 1997, shows he was convicted on 30 July 1997, contrary to his pleas, of wrongful distribution of marijuana on divers occasions between on or about 1 August 1996 and on or about 30 September 1996 and wrongful use of marijuana on divers occasions between on or about 1 August 1996 and on or about 30 September 1996. He was sentenced to reduction to private, E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for one year, and a bad conduct discharge. His sentence was approved on 17 November 1997 and, except for the bad conduct discharge, was executed.
4. A copy of General Court-Martial Order Number 45 was filed in the restricted section of his OMPF.
5. General Court-Martial Order Number 91, dated 2 June 2000, shows the finding of guilty of Specification 1 of the Charge was set aside and Specification 1 of the Charge was dismissed. The remaining finding of guilty was affirmed. The sentence was set aside on 16 March 2000 by the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals. The convening authority determined that a rehearing was impractical. This general court-martial order was filed in the performance section of his OMPF.
6. On 2 June 2000, the remaining finding of guilty and a sentence of no punishment was approved. All rights, privileges, and property of which he had been deprived by virtue of the execution of the sentence adjudged at the former trial on 30 July 1997 were restored.
7. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/
Records) states that once placed in the OMPF, documents become a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from the OMPF or moved to another part of the OMPF unless directed by one of several agencies, one of which is this Board. Table 2-1 of the regulations provides that a court-martial order, when there is an approved finding of guilty on at least one specification, will be filed in the performance portion in the commendatory and disciplinary section.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant was convicted by a general court-martial of wrongful distribution of marijuana and wrongful use of marijuana. He was sentenced to reduction to private, E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for one year, and a bad conduct discharge. The U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals set aside the charge of wrongful distribution but affirmed the conviction of possession of marijuana. The applicants sentence was set aside. The convening authority found that a rehearing was impractical and approved a sentence of no punishment, which the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
2. General Court-Martial Order Number 45 was filed in the restricted section of his OMPF. However, because there was still one approved finding of guilty, it should have been filed in the performance portion of his OMPF. Nevertheless, this Board will not make his records worse by moving it from the restricted section to the performance section of his OMPF.
3. He has established no basis for removing the general court-martial order from the restricted section of his OMPF.
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) AR20100017313
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100017313
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070009593C080213
A corrected copy of General Court-Martial Order Number 1, dated 14 February 1997, states, The sentence is approved AND EXCEPT (emphasis in the original) for the sentence extending to a bad conduct discharge, will be executed. Court-martial orders dated 6 May 1999 also state this. Other charges had been dismissed by the military judge or, later, by the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA). On 28 January 1999, a military judge sitting as a general court-martial at the sentence rehearing...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 08989-05
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by HQMC memorandum 1070 JAM7 of 20 December 2005, and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), letter of 5 April 2006, copies of which are attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. You requested an advisory opinion on Private(hereinafter “Applicant”)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012400
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. If the sentence, as approved by the convening authority, includes a bad-conduct discharge, a dishonorable discharge, dismissal of an officer, or confinement for one year or more, the case is reviewed by the U.S. Army Court of Criminal...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110007982
Special Court-Martial Order Number 10, dated 9 February 2001, shows the sentence as modified by the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals was affirmed and that portion of the sentence pertaining to confinement had been served. It shows the appellate review was completed and the bad conduct discharge was ordered executed. While the applicant contends that he was set up by CID, that the ruling was unfair, and that he committed no wrong, he provided no evidence to support these contentions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007850
The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous requests that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded. The case was remanded back to the ACMR, and on 31 July 1987 the ACMR set aside the finding of guilty and the sentence on the remaining court-marital charge of stealing the submachine gun and authorized a rehearing on the larceny and wrongful disposition charges. Notwithstanding counsel's contention that there were no court-martial charges pending against the...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00850
On 14 August 2013, the CAAF set-aside the United States Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) decision to affirm the guilty finding with respect to the Charge and Specification 2, committing indecent acts upon the body of female under the age of 16, because the specification failed to state an offense and the government failed to provide notice of the missing element during its case- in-chief. Specifically, AF Form 4363, which states the reasons for the Promotion Propriety Action lists both...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006085
The applicant requests that his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general under honorable conditions discharge. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. The 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00888
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00888 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive back pay and allowances for the time he spent in confinement in excess of 98 days. However, they did not believe that a rehearing was needed and reassessed his sentence of a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 98 days, and reduction to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004856
On 16 December 1992, the convening authority approved the sentence and except for the bad conduct discharge, he ordered it executed. The Deputy SJA also stated that the decision to title the applicant for his role in the larceny offenses for which he was later court-martialed appears proper and that no action would be taken to amend the applicant's records and that if new and relevant information was available, the request to amend the ROI could be resubmitted. Accordingly, the CID titling...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014714
The applicant requests an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge (BCD) to an honorable discharge (HD). On 11 August 1998, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 3, section IV, with a BCD in accordance with the affirmed sentence. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.