Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001518
Original file (20110001518.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  4 August 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110001518 


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 (BCD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states he was a victim of circumstances.  He was a passenger in a car that had stolen items in the trunk unbeknown to him.  He was told his BCD would automatically be upgraded to an honorable discharge in 10 years and that has not occurred.  He now needs medical treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documents.

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 on 18 October 1979 and was awarded the military occupational specialty of subsistence supply specialist.

3.  On 7 April 1980, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for possession of marijuana.

4.  On 29 September 1981, he was convicted by a special court-martial of conspiring with another Soldier to commit an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to wit:  larceny of 116 pounds of meat by moving the meat from its freezer and moving it into a dumpster and then transferring the meat to the trunk of the car of another Soldier.  He was also convicted of stealing 116 pounds of meat, the property of the U.S. Government.  He was sentenced to a reduction from pay grade E-4 to E-1, 116 days of confinement, and forfeiture of $330.00 per month for 6 months.

5.  On 3 February 1983, the applicant was again convicted by a special court-martial of stealing a radio/cassette deck of a value of about $250.00, the property of another Soldier.  He was also convicted of unlawfully entering a room, the property of the U.S. Government, with intent to commit a criminal offense, to wit:  larceny, therein.  He was sentenced to a BCD.

6.  On 29 April 1983, the court-martial finding of guilty and the sentence was affirmed by the U.S. Army Court of Military Review.

7.  On 20 May 1983, the applicant's sentence to a BCD was ordered executed.  Accordingly, the applicant was given a BCD as a result of court-martial on 1 July 1983.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Separations) sets forth the basic authority 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 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.  

10.  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.  Prior to charges being brought against the applicant for the offenses that led to his discharge, he accepted NJP for possession of marijuana and was convicted by a special court-martial of conspiring with another Soldier to steal 116 pounds of meat and of stealing 116 pounds of meat.

2.  His second special court-martial convicted him of unlawfully entering a room and stealing a radio/cassette deck of a value of about $250.00, the property of another Soldier.

3.  While the applicant claims he was innocent of the charges that led to his BCD, he has not provided any evidence or argument that would support his assertions.

4.  The applicant's repeated, serious misconduct did not warrant either an honorable or a general discharge.

5.  The Army does not and never has upgraded discharges automatically based on the passage of time and the Board does not change a properly-issued discharge solely to establish entitlement to benefits from another agency.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's 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 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)                                         AR20110001518



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110001518



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020924

    Original file (20100020924.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests, in effect, that his dishonorable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002971

    Original file (20090002971.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD). 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. On 21 January 1994, the applicant was discharged accordingly.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120013892

    Original file (20120013892.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The evidence of record shows he was convicted by a special court-martial which was warranted by the gravity of the offenses charged at the time. His conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and his discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070012673

    Original file (20070012673.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 February 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070012673 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. These charges were served on the applicant on 17 February 1995. The SJA, in an addendum to his recommendation, discusses the defense allegations of legal error, in that the military judge applied an inappropriate...

  • CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2006-061

    Original file (2006-061.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated November 2, 2006, is adopted and signed by the three APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant is a veteran of World War II who received a bad conduct discharge (BCD) on March 15, 1944, pursuant to the sentence of a summary court martial. 1 Under Article 4952(6) of the Coast Guard Personnel Instructions in 1944, a member could receive a BCD if he was “[d]ischarged in accordance with the approved sentence of a general or summary Coast Guard court, as...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100028399

    Original file (20100028399.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). If he had not extended his enlistment to meet the service remaining requirement for assignment to Hawaii he would have an honorable discharge. ___________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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02113

    Original file (BC-2005-02113.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02113 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 JAN 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) discharge be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 17 August 1977, the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial for the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009411

    Original file (20100009411.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. On 27 November 1984, the applicant submitted a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States) to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) requesting an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge. Chapter 3, paragraph 3-10, states a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge [DD Form 259A] pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060008896

    Original file (AR20060008896.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 10Mos, 14Days ????? The Army Discharge Review Board is empowered to change the discharge only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 31 May 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060008896 Applicant Name:...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004101471C070208

    Original file (2004101471C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On the date of the applicant's discharge, he had completed 6 years, 3 months, and 2 days active military service, with 252 days excess leave. Contrary to the applicant's contentions that this was the only occurrence in 6 years of dedicated service, the evidence of record shows that he received non-judicial punishment twice. The evidence of record failed to establish a basis upon which clemency could be granted and upon which the severity of the sentence imposed could be moderated with an...